Re: [Lzip-bug] about lzip..

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2008-11-19 14:41, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
>
>> Now it seems that another Lzip (yours) showed up in 2008 according to the
>> freshmeat page at http://freshmeat.net/p/lzip . This name confusion is bad
>> ...
>
> Do you suggest I should refrain from choosing the name I consider
> appropiate for my project just because seven years ago some guy
> with too much spare time decided to use that name in a joke?

Even for projects that aim to be serious, people repeatedly thought
that in retrospect they should have chosen a name that was not listed
in Google - YMMV though.
http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/fuse/index.php?title=FAQ#Why_is_it_called_FUSE.3F__There.27s_a_ZX_Spectrum_emulator_called_Fuse_too.

>> What can lzip do better than lzma from http://tukaani.org/lzma/
>> (which is already used widely (e.g. present in distributions and,
>> for example2, lzma'ed payload for RPM packages))?
>
> Lzip provides a much simpler and reliable implementation. Lzip also
> provides a simple but safe file format, with magic bytes and
> integrity checking. The stable branch of lzma-utils, the one
> "widely used", uses the lzma-alone file format, which lacks both. I
> hope everybody who cares about data safety will switch from the
> lzma-alone format to the lzip format as soon as they know about it.

Have you conversed with tukaani.org's implementors about this? If so,
were there any objections to have your simplified code go into
lzma-utils?