>>>>> We'd also prefer a more common format, e.g. xz instead of lzip (which
>>>>> isn't supported by our standard unpacker), but this is a minor issue.
>>> This might also be difficult due to storage issues.
>> I find `lzip` to be much better behaved (which probably just means "more
>> like the other tools with which I'm familiar"), which is why I chose it.
>> I think it's also a bit closer philosophically to GNU.
> How so? Their command lines act the same.
Interesting. I should have written "found" rather than "find".
That was many years ago when I was shopping for a gzip replacement, so
maybe I misremember the details (a quick web-search suggests, maybe
I was swayed also by some of the design/benchmark documents, that
suggested the author had designed the tool with a lot of care).
I've since used lzip for "everything" without looking back, really.
(Non)GNU ELPA has been using lzip for its old tarballs for the last
5 years and this is the first time someone complains about it being too
obscure, so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of changing. I think
I'd be more willing to consider a change to something newer/better than
lzip, rather than something whose only significant advantage is being
more popular.
Stefan
