bug-gzip
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities


From: Antonio Diaz Diaz
Subject: Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:50:32 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050905

Paul Eggert wrote:
IMHO this problem is already solved.

If you're right, then there is no rush in changing gzip.

I mean this problem is already being solved in diverse and incompatible ways by every distro addressing it. Changing gzip will give them a clear hint about what to do, and will avoid more incompatible changes in the future.

Of course I know it may be difficult to make this change, but IMHO it would be best to release this change as, say, gzip 1.4.1 ASAP.


If memory serves, we were going to add a configure-time flag
to change the program names from z* to gz*, which sounds
reasonable, when someone gets around to it.

Exactly.


You might also consider what changes are needed to the FHS,
since it seems to be incompatible with what's being proposed.

The FHS is already incompatible with the GNU Coding Standards[1], so renaming zcat to gzcat could help getting the FHS corrected, as it would make the FHS even more wrong that it is now.

[1]http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/User-Interfaces.html#User-Interfaces
"Please don't make the behavior of a utility depend on the name used to invoke it. It is useful sometimes to make a link to a utility with a different name, and that should not change what it does."


Also the man page for the original zcat utility from UNIX[2] says nothing about it being a link.

[2]http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/zcat.html
"The zcat utility shall write to standard output the uncompressed form of files that have been compressed using the compress utility. It is the equivalent of uncompress -c."


So I guess the sentence "If the gunzip and zcat programs exist, they must be symbolic or hard links to gzip" should be removed from the FHS[3].
[3]http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SPECIFICOPTIONS2

I would write to the FHS people myself, but as the FHS is already incompatible with the GNU Coding Standards I wonder if someone from the FSF can write them instead. I'll ask.


Regards,
Antonio.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]