Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
But nothing I saw there mentioned the upcoming (and superior) xz format/tool (aka lzma-utils' unstable branch). That is what's on the current head of the "master" branch of the lzma-utils git tree. git://ctrl.tukaani.org/lzma-utils.git xz is the name of the new tool as well as the corresponding suffix. Lasse Collin says there may well be a beta release this year. I have been following lzma-utils development closely for some time, and my impression is that xz obviates lzip. I would not want to encourage use of lzip without a convincing argument to the contrary. As soon as there's a beta xz release (i.e., stable format), I'll be switching from .lzma to .xz suffixes for all tarballs I create.