Re: [Lzip-bug] Re: performance: gzip, lzip, xz

[Jim Meyering]

Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Perhaps you're imagining that filters will be added willy-nilly,
>> without a thought to long-term usability and the possibility of bloat.
>
> Well, who guarantees filters will not be added willy-nilly?

You jest?
The person who guarantees that is the same sort of person who ensures
lzip does not turn into a trojan, or erase all of my disks.

> Or that a
> newly added filter won't interact badly with an existing one? Since
> the xz format allows many changes, I assume some changes will be
> made. Else its modifiability would be a waste.

>> Can you name archiver formats that specify subblock-like filters?
>
> Yes, RAR. See the file headers.hpp in unrar source.

Interesting, but not relevant.
xz is still not an archive format.

>> lzip 1.5 supports the version 1 file format, but it does not support the
>> sync flush marker, which lzip 1.7 and later support.  Look for "Sync Flush
>> marker" in decoder.cc.  Equivalent code is not present in 1.5.
>
> This is not exactly a format change.

There is no middle ground.  Either it is, or it is not.