On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM Giuseppe Scrivano <gscri...@redhat.com> wrote: > Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:35 PM Giuseppe Scrivano <gscri...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > >> Hi Jim, > >> > >> Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:03 AM Giuseppe Scrivano <gscri...@redhat.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> add support for using the zstd compression algorithm. > >> > > >> > Hi Giuseppe, > >> > Thank you for that patch. > >> > I've adjusted it and propose the attached, which makes these changes: > >> > - add tests > >> > - that exposed the need for a correction, s/-d/-dc/ in distdir.am > >> > - extend documentation > >> > - use the 3-byte suffix, .zst, not .zstd > >> > - use -19 as the default compression level > >> > > >> > We must use -19 as the default, not the aggressive --ultra -22 -- the > >> > package maintainer can always override with ZSTD_OPT if they know all > >> > clients will always have sufficient memory. In the early days, some > >> > reported failure to decompress a "xz -9e"-compressed coreutils tarball > >> > on tiny-memory routers. Like zstd's --ultra settings, xz's -9 requires > >> > more RAM when DEcompressing -- so automake defaults to xz's "-e" (use > >> > extra CPU only) and used -e8 for coreutils > >> > (https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=v8.15-61-gc1d07237a): > >> > i.e., still require 32MiB more RAM, but not the 64MiB that "-9" would > >> > require. > >> > > >> > Cc'd the zstd author, Yann Collet, in case he'd like to add something. > >> > > >> > Giuseppe, please re-review this diff and its updated commit log. > >> > >> is there anything more holding the patch? > > > > Sorry about the delay. > > On suggestion from Yann, I propose one additional change. Barring > > objection, I will push the combined result tomorrow. > > The new patch looks good to me.
Pushed.
