TL;DR. The xz format has a long list of defects, and at least some of
them are not minor. Please, don't promote such a defective format using
it in GCC. Thanks. :-)
R0b0t1 wrote:
http://lzip.nongnu.org/xz_inadequate.html
That article is rather interesting but unfortunately it does not
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:17:57 -0300
From: Matias Fonzo
To: R0b0t1
Subject: Re: xz instead of bzip2
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:44:25 -0500
R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Matias Fonzo
> wrote:
> > Dear GCC developers,
> >
>
Hello Andreas et all,
Andreas Schwab wrote:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2017-01/msg9.html
In the above link I read the following affirmation by Jim Meyering: "I
found/find that xz is superior to lzip". But he does not back his
affirmation with any evidence.
Appeal to au
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:24:50 +0200
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 05 2017, Matias Fonzo wrote:
>
> > Dear GCC developers,
> >
> > What happens here !
> >
> > "Weekly snapshots now use xz compression [2017-05-24]
> > ...instead of bzip2."
> >
> > Are you aware that a better implementation /
On Jun 05 2017, Matias Fonzo wrote:
> Dear GCC developers,
>
> What happens here !
>
> "Weekly snapshots now use xz compression [2017-05-24]
> ...instead of bzip2."
>
> Are you aware that a better implementation / format exists for this
> purposes?:
>
> http://lzip.nongnu.org/
>
> Review
Dear GCC developers,
What happens here !
"Weekly snapshots now use xz compression [2017-05-24]
...instead of bzip2."
Are you aware that a better implementation / format exists for this
purposes?:
http://lzip.nongnu.org/
Review of xz:
http://lzip.nongnu.org/xz_inadequate.html
Ple
