[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4517FA12.1010300@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:47:30 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>
CC: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>,
Johannes Stezenbach <js@...uxtv.org>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
Dax Kelson <dax@...ulabs.com>,
Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: Smaller compressed kernel source tarballs?
Paulo Marques wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> On the site it's said lzma(sdk) is under rewrite to support
>>> new format with magic number and crc checks...
>>
>> That is an absolute must, IMO. I would use the gzip format as a base.
>
> If you're suggesting a gzip like format (but with different magic,
> etc.), that's ok.
>
> However, it has been suggested on similar threads to use the CM field of
> the gzip format to introduce different compression methods.
>
> While this is the purpose of this field, I find this to be a very bad
> idea. The worse part of it is that, after "lzma gzip" files start to
> proliferate, you never know if you can decompress a .gz with your
> version of gunzip, which is something that you currently have for granted.
>
> If more formats start being supported inside gzip, this only gets worse...
>
Doesn't mean that one should name the files .gz.
A more significant reason to not do this is that I think there are a lot
of programs out where which only check the magic number and not the
compression format.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists