[Top][All Lists]
[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.
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, (continued)
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Dagobert Michelsen, 2011/01/03
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2011/01/14
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/14
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2011/01/15
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/15
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2011/01/16
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/16
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2011/01/17
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/17
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities,
Antonio Diaz Diaz <=
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/18
- Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2011/01/18
Re: Zutils vs single compressor utilities, Matias A. Fonzo, 2011/01/20