On Monday 22 May 2006 21:24, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> > Any idea why this wasn't done for bzip2?
> >>
> >> Yes, the bzip2 author I have been told was originally planning to do
> >> that, but then thought it would be harder to deploy that way (because
> >> gzip is a core utility, and people are nervous about making it larger.)
>
> I'd say that concern is valid.
>
> >It's a bit of a shame bzip2 even exists, really. It really would be better
> > if there was one unified, pluggable archiver on UNIX (and portables).
>
> Would You Like To Contribute(tm)? :)
> Whenever a program is missing, someone is there to write it.
I would, but if it's a "valid concern" that gzip is a few hundred KB larger,
and the community would not graciously receive such work, there's not much
point, is there? :-)
Seriously, though, if I understand gzip correctly, it uses deflate/zlib
internally. Why, in that case, does /bin/gzip not (dynamically) link against
libz? If a first step was fixing that, a second could be linking dynamically
against libbz2 and 'liblzma', and making it all compile-time configurable.
That should keep everybody happy.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
Third year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
