From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751691AbdFAKzy (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 06:55:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36698 "EHLO eggs.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751646AbdFAKzx (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 06:55:53 -0400 Message-ID: <592FF27F.3070104@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 12:54:55 +0200 From: Antonio Diaz Diaz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: Antonio Diaz Diaz Subject: Please, consider using lzip instead of xz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (I'm not subscribed to the list. Please CC me.) Dear Linux developers, In 2010 Laszlo Ersek recommended[1] the plzip program to compress Linux tarballs. However his advice went unnoticed, and Linux developers chose xz instead. [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/21/202 Now I would like to present new evidence in favor of Laszlo's recommendation. Please, see it at http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html , http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/lzip_benchmark.html#xz2 and http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/plzip_benchmark.html Please, could you reconsider your decision and use lzip instead of xz for the compression of Linux tarballs? Thanks, Antonio.