Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:55:12 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: ache@nagual.pp.ru, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libz minigzip.c Message-ID: <17981.907048512@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:30:42 %2B1000." <199809290530.PAA15934@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Do you know if they've made minigzip more compat with gzip in > >this next release? If not, we should be sure and bring John's > > I hope not. It's supposed to be a minimal gzip. The man page > still says so. Umm. Now wait, that's just being silly. If one can add 4 lines worth of inconsequential code in order to use minigzip as *a minimal gzip* in some situation where that saves demonstrable space, then I'd say that was minigzip doing no more or less than its job. That is what I personally take "minigzip" to mean. Oh, you have a different semantic interpretation? That would not be an unusual occurrance. Are the changes in question large enough to make such differences in semantic interpretation that important? No. So either way, it seems a worth-while change. But why not let the maintainers be the arbiters of this since they seem to be actively moving the library forward - there's nothing FreeBSD specific about these changes, and if they happen to see them the same way then it's settled and nobody need argue about it. If not, then I'll just have to bloat up the boot floppies again and leave it to someone else to find a few reclaimable K's when we next hit the wall. - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17981.907048512>