On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Matias A. Fonzo <s...@dragora.org> wrote: >> 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). LZMA-based compressors give a better, and slower, compression than bzip2. It is not unexpected that with faster processors, we reached the point when people can use it without excessive time penalty. Kernel is released in .xz tarballs (in addition to .bz2). Distributions are using xz-compressed .rpms. These are cold hard facts. I don't invent them. Try googling for kernel tarballs in .lzip.Or any tarballs in .lzip for that matter. Sure, I found them... *eventually*. Busybox has no xz compression support, but it inevitably will be requested. (As it has happened with bzip2). And if by that time it will have lzip, it ended up having *two* LZMA compressors, one widely used and another much less known. I don't thing having that extra baggage would be useful. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
