On Saturday 03 March 2012 14:52:37 James K. Lowden wrote: > Why does such an arcane, uninteresting technology warrant advertizing > via a new utility and suffix? Why isn't xz a feature of zlib, so that > unzipping applications could automatically use it? If the xz folks > are determined to supplant gzip, why not fork gzip and add xz to it, > or link zlib to the xz utility, so that one command suffices for both? > > As a project downstream from xz, if we must have yet another > compression format independent of gzip, why not let it live along side > the established one(s) until pretty much anything that links to zlib or > similar also supports xz?
this makes no sense at all. by your logic, zlib/gzip should support every single compression that someone might use. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
