On Friday 2008-11-28 17:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Since LZIP support has appeared apparently out of the blue (no > prior discussion on this list), and Automake already had LZMA > support, can someone please explain LZIP vs LZMA and why we now > have at least two LZMA compressed targets?
See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lzip-bug/2008-11/msg00003.html , I think this should answer it. > I see that LZIP is GPL licensed and is pretty small, and with just > one author. Sometimes, simplicity is the key. And I do not think that having exactly 1.0 authors makes a project insignificant. > It also seems that LZIP is not capable of decoding LZMA > utils output. In the gzip × bzip2 × lzma matrix, neither can decode another. So it's not like lzip would be missing a feature others would have. > If automake now supports 'lzip', why does it not also offer to support 7-Zip', > 'srpm', 'zoo', 'arc', and the many other possible archiving formats so that > confusion of the user base can become complete? I would say because 7zip, ZOO and ARC (what's with these 1990s packers?) do not support UNIX owners nor permissions (required for the beloved +x bit on scripts.).