El Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:50:44 +0100 Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> escribió: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Matias A. Fonzo <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What percentage of bbox users would want to produce .lzip files? > > > > How to know it? > > > > > >> It isn't a widely used format. > > > > With this thought (nothing personal), what chances have the good > > alternatives out there?. > > > > (xz is not more popular (or widely used) than gzip or bzip2). > > LZMA-based compressors give a better, and slower, compression > than bzip2. It is not unexpected that with faster processors, > we reached the point when people can use it without excessive > time penalty. > > Kernel is released in .xz tarballs (in addition to .bz2). > Distributions are using xz-compressed .rpms.
I prefer to download tarballs in bzip2 format, (if there's no other option between xz or bzip2). At least, bzip2 provides a recovery tool. ;-) By the way -- RPM has lzip support[1]: [1] http://www.rpm.org/ticket/839 > These are cold hard facts. I don't invent them. > Try googling for kernel tarballs in .lzip.Or any tarballs > in .lzip for that matter. Sure, I found them... *eventually*. > > Busybox has no xz compression support, but it inevitably > will be requested. (As it has happened with bzip2). > And if by that time it will have lzip, it ended up > having *two* LZMA compressors, one widely used > and another much less known. I don't thing having > that extra baggage would be useful. > This criteria was applied to sysvinit vs. runit, too?. :-) One can choose. Regards, Matias _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
