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.


Reply via email to