On Saturday 2008-11-29 10:06, Jim Meyering wrote: >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.
Nothing has happened since at least July when I inquired. I mean, it is not that hard to add the two features, magic byte string and checksum, is it? (IMHO the format should have had these from the beginning even.) >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. > lzip is (marked as) stable now, it was enough waiting for lzma.
