Re: Linux 2.6.33-rc7

[John Feuerstein <john@feurix.com>]

I've looked up the GNU tar history, just in case this is relevant:

[1] 1994-11-16 Version 1.11  -z --gzip
[2] 1999-02-01 Version 1.12  -y --bzip2
[3] 2000-10-24 Version 1.12+ -j --bzip2
[4] 2007-10-17 Version 1.20+    --lzma
[5] 2008-06-26 Version 1.20+ -J --lzma
[6] 2008-06-26 Version 1.20+    --lzop
[7] 2009-03-04 Version 1.21+ -J --xz

GNU Tar: http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/

[1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=tar.git;a=commit;h=17badf1
[2] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=tar.git;a=commit;h=6ccb513
[3] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=tar.git;a=commit;h=caf6047
[4] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=tar.git;a=commit;h=620a136
[5] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=tar.git;a=commit;h=c9a7297
[6] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=tar.git;a=commit;h=c9a7297
[7] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=tar.git;a=commit;h=c10830a

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Do people really care about the old-fashioned tar.gz and patch.gz
> files? I've always uploaded the tar-files and patches compressed with
> gzip, because that's the "traditional" way, and then we have a script
> that also re-compresses things as 'bz2' because it compresses better
> and many people are bandwidth-limited and much prefer the better
> compression.

I prefer bzip2 or better, but then again, I'm usually working in GNU
environments.

Mark Lord wrote:
> what about the new lz thing?
> (heck haven't even figured that out yet).

Have a look at:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xz
- http://tukaani.org/xz/format.html


-- 
John Feuerstein <john@feurix.com>