3 ms·
> Why not get rid of xz completely? ... you mean compression package used by most big distros to make their packages? Do you really need to ask > Hoe about us
by adql 3y ago
> Why not get rid of xz completely?
... you mean compression package used by most big distros to make their packages? Do you really need to ask
> Hoe about using a simpler piece of software, which could be maintained by more people?
It's not a complex piece of software. Lib itself is ~15k lines of code.
It does it's job well and it needs little work. It didn't had any outstanding bugs lingering unfixed for years
Complexity have nothing to do with the problem, it's just... uninteresting enough that there is no reason for contribute.
- imjonse 3y agoComplexity is one of the root causes of the problem. The script was added via messy autoconf scripts inscrutable to most people. That is decades old tech which has alternatives.
- simoncion 3y ago> ... you mean compression package used by most big distros to make their packages? Do you really need to ask Because of the existence of gzip, zlib, bzip2, and many others, it's trivial to drop xz. So yeah, why not get rid of xz completely?
- lispm 3y agoI've seen for example here a lot of issues raised: https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html