From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MSaS9-0006K7-L1 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:37 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MSaS8-0006Jn-A8 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:36 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MSaS3-0006JO-Pf for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:35 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41052 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MSaS3-0006JL-NL for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:31 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:32324) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MSaS3-00047O-5S for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:31 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2009 13:45:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23D7C34C6A for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:55:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <20090718181821.GC8867@thorin> References: <20090715234038.31016.40532.stgit@mj.roinet.com> <20090715234045.31016.49690.stgit@mj.roinet.com> <20090718181821.GC8867@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1248025527.2519.8.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Disable lzo compression, lzma is doing its job just fine X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:45:36 -0000 On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 20:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > It doesn't break things, since it's barely modified, and doesn't interact with > the rest of the code, but simply having more code means an added work to > maintain it when we restructure things, etc. It needs to pay off in some way. Exactly. Actually, my intention was to improve test coverage. To test lzma and lzo, GRUB needs to be compiled twice. If we want to support MacOS compilation properly (I mean local labels), we'll need to adjust both lzma and lzo. Extra code means more development time wasted on mostly unused code. There then there is an issue of user choice. I think we are offering too many choices without explaining what's behind it. I could say lzo is "old and proven" and lzma is "new and more effective", but since lzo is disabled by default and there are no complaints about it, keeping lzo becomes pointless. I don't think we are going to see compression much more effecting than lzma to justify keeping the infrastructure for more than one compression algorithm. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin