Message156370
| Author |
loewis |
| Recipients |
alanmcintyre, eric.araujo, loewis, nadeem.vawda, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date |
2012年03月20日.00:12:47 |
| SpamBayes Score |
3.6701922e-09 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1332202368.59.0.014961470392.issue14366@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
For EOS, please re-read the specification. If you then still think it is not needed, read it again :-) The documentation in liblzma is irrelevant, only the PKWARE specification matters. Take particular notice of the phrase "implementers should include the EOS marker whenever possible"
For bzip: propose a patch that does just the bzip stuff, and any infrastructure changes needed for it. Having the LZMA patch depend on this is fine.
Re: extensible compressors. I don't think that's needed. There is only a finite set, and if somebody wants to support some compression method, they should submit a patch.
Re: allowZip64. This depends on whether you create or extract. Not using a feature on creation is fine - we don't *have* to use all supported features. On extraction, if a feature is used and we support it, it should get used regardless of any configuration (note: I didn't check what allowZip64 currently does).
Re: 7zip. What it does is irrelevant. The ZIP format is defined by PKWARE, so if you want to look at a reference implementation, use theirs. Else use the spec. |
|