On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> IMO, rpm should not adopt lzip support, unless lzip has proven to be
> a functional and viable tool.
Many people think lzip has already proven that:
http://lpar.ath0.com/2009/09/25/documentation-as-an-indicator-of-code-quality/
http://www.dragora.org/
On Wednesday 2008-12-17 12:53, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> > LZIP is the new stable lzma compression utility
>> Pardon, but what is your legitimation to claim lzip to be
>> "the new stable lzm
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> LZIP is the new stable lzma compression utility
> Pardon, but what is your legitimation to claim lzip to be
> "the new stable lzma compression utility"?
>
> No doubt, it is "yet one another lzm
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> LZIP is the new stable lzma compression utility
Pardon, but what is your legitimation to claim lzip to be
"the new stable lzma compression utility"?
No doubt, it is "yet one another lzma" compression utility.
>
> ( http://freshmeat.net
LZIP is the new stable lzma compression utility
( http://freshmeat.net/p/lzip/ ) with magic bytes and checksum.
===
commit edacdf5e91e25393d6394e88d6d920b3b1cc0cac
Author: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed Nov 26 22:50:50 2008 +0100
Support LZIP compression
---
build/parsePrep.c