On 03/01/2013 11:33:46 AM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
Dear Denys.
The mistake here would be to reject lzip...
You deny the busybox maintainer's reality, and substitute your own!
The current situation looks pretty simple:
lzip and xz are roughly the same feature-wise,
The only feature for which lzip and xz are roughly the same is
compression
speed/size. Sadly it seems the only feature ever tested/cared for by
most users.
Gee, I wonder why?
Stop and think, what is any compression code in busybox _for_? The only
reason to have xz in busybox at all is because there are a lot of
existing tar.xz files out there. It is an existing, deployed file
format which busybox wants to be compatible with.
You're saying that you've got a new super compression format called arj
or zoo or stuffit or binhex or whatever it is, and you'd very much like
to shoehorn it into busybox in hopes of getting it wider adoption.
Denys said no. You're getting huffy about it. I await the flounce.
Therefore, in their real-world use, Busybox users will need
to unpack *xz* files. Such as kernel tarballs from kernel.org,
distribution .rpms with internally-xz'ed cpio archives,
and many other things.
This sees users as consumers. What about the users who want to create
their
own compressed files?
They might want to do so in a format that people they send it to would
previously have heard of. Given how bad an ambassador you are for your
preferred choice, I'm guessing lzma ain't ever gonna be it.
Not counting that any Busybox user wanting to check the integrity of
files will
avoid xz files anyway. Kernel tarballs are also distributed in bzip2
format.
Great, so we've got this compression thing covered. So we don't need
your new format, ever, for any reason, at all. Good to know.
You still have a way in, though. You have prepared _compression_
support too. That is something xz embedded doesn't provide.
Anyone who wants to _create_ a .xz file using bbox is potentially
your client.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not seeking "clients".
I am trying to be the change I wish to see in the world.
No, you're trying to make busybox be the change you see in the world,
by leveraging the installed base of an established project to promote
your agenda, and doing so _OVER_ the maintainer's objections.
If the change you wish to make in the world is annoying people, you're
doing great.
Hijacking a mailing list thread about a bug to promote an alternate
_incompatible_ implementation is not even potentially the same as
addressing the bug. It's not "look, this other code has a bug, I win!"
That's not how it works. I've been working to replace busybox with
toybox for years and I still occasionally submit bug reports (and
fixes!) here.
Rob
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
