>> >> > 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? :-)
>
Make it use shared libraries (did I already mention that?)
BTW, "a few hundred KB" is really overestimated if it's just about bzip2:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 27640 Apr 23 02:20 /usr/bin/bzip2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 66864 Apr 23 02:20 /lib/libbz2.so.1.0.0
That's not even _one_ hundred KB. Oh, just keep it as .so. :)
And of course, compile with klibc, it has less loader bloat than glibc (as
someone had found out...I think it was Greg.)
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
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]
