El Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:03:55 +0100 Denys Vlasenko <vda.li...@googlemail.com> escribió: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Harald Becker <ra...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 01-03-2013 15:51 Denys Vlasenko <vda.li...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >>Please understand my position. > > > >>Maintaining three copies of LZMA (de)compressors with > >>virtually identical performance would be a mistake. > > > > You are still right, but there is one big difference: lzip has a > > compressor in Busybox not only a decompressor. lzma and xz are only > > decompressors and it is handy to have same available in cases where > > you hit one of those files and you do not have access to the full > > package. > > What percentage of bbox users would want to produce .lzip files?
How to know it?. > It isn't a widely used format. With this thought (nothing personal), what chances have the good alternatives out there?. (xz is not more popular (or widely used) than gzip or bzip2). > bbox didn't have even bzip2 compressor for a long time. Hmm.. what about the memory usage?. > > Beside this I prefer lzip due to its full implementation in > > Busybox ... or are you going to add an xz compressor in Busybox? > > Yes, adding xz compressor is a good idea. > > > And in addition, if you do not like to have all those decompressors > > in your Busybox binary, you can disable your dislikes in the config. > > This does not remove the need to maintain the code. > More code = more bugs. > Rarely used code = bugs stay unfixed for a longer time. > > > There are people who like to have a full compressor/decompressor > > in Busybox, performing better than gzip/bzip2. > > xz compressor then. > Precisely, adding the compressor, doesn't it imply adding more code?. More code than the expected, I guess... _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
