From owner-cvs-all  Mon Sep 28 22:56:28 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all>
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA19389
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA19378;
          Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1])
	by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17985;
	Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from 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 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:30:42 +1000."
             <199809290530.PAA15934@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:55:12 -0700
Message-ID: <17981.907048512@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >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