Re: [Lzip-bug] about lzip..

[Antonio Diaz Diaz]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 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.

Do you mean lzip is not a "serious" project? ;-)

WRT the name, most google results for lzip refer to the LZIP protein 
also named CREB3. If you want results for my lzip, better use "lzip gnu" 
or "lzip lzma" as search strings (without the quotes).


> > 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?

Oh yes, I did it months ago. But he insists on supporting lzma-alone 
because it is widely used, don't mind how bad a format it is. Even 
worse, there are two other projects, 7zip and p7zip, that also produce 
lzma-alone files.

I don't know if the lzip format will displace the lzma-alone format, but 
users and packagers are not stupid as you can see in the comments to GNU 
ddrescue http://freshmeat.net/projects/addrescue/


Best regards,
Antonio.