From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 17:56:07 2018 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2018 21:56:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38726 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3qNy-0004Mn-R5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:56:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35068) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3pg7-0003L0-UN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:10:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3pg1-0000EZ-QY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:10:42 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:54769) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3pg1-0000EO-Mf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:10:41 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54272) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3pg0-000583-LZ for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:10:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3pfv-0000BG-K5 for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:10:40 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:38617) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3pfv-0000Ae-9B for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:10:35 -0400 Received: from null ([172.19.249.32]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue102 [212.227.15.179]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MSJ1n-1exWwF3ryd-00TWhd for ; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 23:10:32 +0200 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 22:10:32 +0100 (BST) From: - - To: bug-gzip@gnu.org Message-ID: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> Subject: Version 2?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.4-Rev22 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:rbiz2dk6SmIIW3EEnfHZA3BM51CHWPMQOZczqLvcpgUg62MIwSq OfK1eevY7BMjuZqI2Ar74pUNN76IEEo1kH1OVJifF10r2Xt4pAfq6qBDq07pOSgQzMNGuvk VDt94JwuvniavHZsBXWjYPhYNM6plzl2JzOlxklDJDfr7ff5ZAsJm2pmegWUz0BHjayHmbn cvDvZ6pgnopZxa+pNVP2g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:RycuI/oXv+U=:bLjJoZnvaIJW2mfoW25csJ qQ3DEYqoWmh9T17qUN7sgRpNpI4GZje5rzTMfHpofwMpPPDmi068SY71eFrF5rW6LXq9gdF27 QWBMas/CXIIlO8HDvpuKiPpJrhoPhSsxLfe2a/q2+N/EPtImi55mJzZ/tEt6AoDj9tYFsD9Wy MDi9cAdXo5Cu4aO7ejSpQvPwuSIrgGBN7snSkl4RizxkxwzQzpr/vsWYDp+vbq4M1BWeDSAAg u5Ouqt7ycnRxK4yXgU7sAj8Pge5GySVTw4mQCjzDLe2at7xoM/jU0IHVzAtRXItqO49t1a31b 9FNqy5s7aItrtxoexKiqGTDxsR5CiSMZKnzQJdvqDmK2K8dIPeGDKwUwnL+JUXVal9btLnKtj Dci8SwPJXoBDEv4vNd/NIHsNLK9ad2U7OLCrpCpH4jz6/oXpPonEQpcFabnnSiuddYsS1NV4s nDhC9DzW6yS63jPz5x6JUKhe/NZ7whvkf8RN0lpL+OjIu4y9xuuguqEWasT/lqJgpytdejsD/ H8BaDag6fWyLqzA/tNLltkMIsouPyIECpeoZ+JUVUt0ygJ1ozKhkjMupUdv26DaVy3C6VsYj0 IvSRY49n2U9+bpljnaFum77HkuOY3HuovEFbfFb3ZWLQtiXfNRydovx5/bg2ZxpbS+cfIe09T TJOOkd3xLmg7GdQ1rQ+1f+OVzdbVUi2iKEcEhwcCrrOhwioujHOyuP6EWTQdLOAzyYrUYngFv hBlGU2wZvDEF0trMpoxJ9gmHPK+PBZFv7VIeA07QWLSUcDhWpC5FdJmxj3U= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -3.9 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:56:04 -0400 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.9 (---)

Hi, some time ago Jean-loup, said on http://www.gzip.org/recover.txt that

"As you can see, all this is not a trivial task, so you should attempt it only if your data is very valuable. gzip 2.0 will have a new blocksize option, allowing to recover easily all undamaged blocks after the damaged portion."

I'm using gzip 1.9 from the PCLinuxOS.


Can you please let me know:

1 Is it still the plan to get this into 2.0?

2 If you are, when do you think 2.0 will be out??

Thanks loads

Martin

From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 19:01:30 2018 Received: (at 31065) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2018 23:01:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38753 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3rPG-0005sX-G5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 19:01:30 -0400 Received: from mail.alumni.caltech.edu ([131.215.242.114]:49401) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3rPE-0005sK-MK for 31065@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 19:01:29 -0400 Received: from [17.115.233.79] (unknown [17.115.233.79]) (Authenticated sender: madler) by mail.alumni.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 091AD10AEEDA; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:01:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.alumni.caltech.edu 091AD10AEEDA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alumni.caltech.edu; s=enforce; t=1522882861; bh=qF4onR9clekgFfiZB0RNTCisMu5wnGnCDt2Nnu+4dQ0=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=LzuYuDR1NRXSnIEjl215cVxWiNxPftOFmKKmx17C8DtD+hr/VshHqKiUvmxdKBJXr FIUduvFQRyXTCyLA64I456EKxIsIW/v/gc48yoqjKSCqAS4hW4PQNzYi2b5i6Tgl/g 3BhNuE7Y2J6bv9PqUgF53rXBm/PtSgfYmQH5xFKg= Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Adler X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:01:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> To: computing@windcheetah.org.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) X-MailScanner-Information-Alumni: X-Alumni-MailScanner-ID: 091AD10AEEDA.AF7F6 X-MailScanner-Alumni: No Virii found X-Spam-Status-Alumni: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.1, required 5, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.10, DKIM_VALID -0.10, DKIM_VALID_AU -0.10) X-MailScanner-From: madler@alumni.caltech.edu X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065 Cc: 31065@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) Jean-loup has not worked on gzip for many years, but I will leave it to = the gzip maintainers here to answer to their future intentions. However pigz has that ability now with the --independent option, where = the block size defaults to 128K, and can be changed with the --blocksize = option. See http://zlib.net/pigz/ > On Apr 4, 2018, at 2:10 PM, - - wrote: >=20 > Hi, some time ago Jean-loup, said on = [1]http://www.gzip.org/recover.txt > that > "As you can see, all this is not a trivial task, so you should = attempt > it only if your data is very valuable. gzip 2.0 will have a new > blocksize option, allowing to recover easily all undamaged blocks = after > the damaged portion." > I'm using gzip 1.9 from the PCLinuxOS. > Can you please let me know: > 1 Is it still the plan to get this into 2.0? > 2 If you are, when do you think 2.0 will be out?? > Thanks loads > Martin >=20 > References >=20 > 1. http://www.gzip.org/recover.txt From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 20:18:37 2018 Received: (at 31065-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 00:18:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38779 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3sbs-0007a2-OF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:18:36 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175]:37671) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3sbq-0007Zn-2N for 31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:18:34 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w12so25170131qti.4 for <31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:18:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=VX1OJNGUZH5oka2Iwue5SPdcdplEqHJD/7l40TrrRjg=; b=mDkkB7LbqA+WbBlXGCW/HHmlCxUU2qTTKA9vRl8ZxwRtPnCYV4/bD+2BFx7oFQwZQB frMbWBymtlNLWO4yXUwYs5gMIrt9R7FuGVobkQc118bMEhuz8o6fW6SpZBZXbvpcy/Rb ZsDhso6et4Nk4AskeQuQ4EPyHN68zGtZbWOgC4jUyC/zIPnBKsZAcm1nszY8drSHhJ/z UnjvcbvSCM8iWrX2SlnGxn2BIqoKJRrZsmCTZSYRWwll6tycvD9iaEJqrJU/MBvfIx8M mqa0VdRzEC8IEzyNOrxtUCQVv9SKAGvsmZia57KMn3yWNNi9UQpWb8fHi1KOQqzQUKvd LStA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VX1OJNGUZH5oka2Iwue5SPdcdplEqHJD/7l40TrrRjg=; b=fl1QjpuOl3Prj8ngqOiMwCORjuN/z8Kpr2DbHVGGTF27fujJ8CF89clACEFxLhCokx Dl96F8s8g1JOU7n9LHMElKsyuJr5WktwAOa9+GlgWCRJXTO5L1Sr4iTQmzqM1nwdcuC8 3HnPSQBdQDkTzWUZHg3NA1IR74O1I+HUmcNKI7klaeh1gM6Y8SE9v2bwQSO0su05bc07 f/5EDV50yWCTwuhrguQphqClTQYhgimctS7K+4PhBx+iueDiuUtwVYcW3X6A5qfkcvan Gcr+3h8hSJCpXZbkXKz5fETkUQYJg76s3FiqIxPLkF/giB/zQz2efu22C8mGEzVCzl5R vKUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBIbuDgjsP7zgR3sl1gFBnUM7TBv1KKPkyOPf/nCp5quVG82IVb 5jTIyHZgNk4jsdU72wPEmPXMmcrJr/mvRVB7V78= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/52TVjhvOo4Vl7w57FvI1lAVejyGPltFu+Bh6p7VLbb/VBTsOJ4Czrpfl769alxna9yEJ40ZeFHhso511jkuI= X-Received: by 10.237.47.165 with SMTP id m34mr29860581qtd.178.1522887508519; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:18:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.98.4 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:18:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> From: Jim Meyering Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:18:07 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vOne1G54RtZKwK1SRb7ibUXAFpY Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? To: Mark Adler Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065-done Cc: computing@windcheetah.org.uk, 31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) tags 31065 notabug stop On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Mark Adler wrote: > Jean-loup has not worked on gzip for many years, but I will leave it to the gzip maintainers here to answer to their future intentions. > > However pigz has that ability now with the --independent option, where the block size defaults to 128K, and can be changed with the --blocksize option. See http://zlib.net/pigz/ Hi Mark, thanks for replying. As for gzip vs. 2.0, I can say with confidence that we would strongly discourage such an effort here. If you want that capability, use pigz. While gzip is worth maintaining, it is definitely not the compression tool of the future. I've marked this as "notabug" and closed the issue in gzip's tracker, but you're welcome to continue replying here. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 20:54:56 2018 Received: (at 31065-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 00:54:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38787 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3tB2-0008N9-Mn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:54:56 -0400 Received: from mail.alumni.caltech.edu ([131.215.242.114]:57147) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3tB0-0008Mv-3T for 31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:54:54 -0400 Received: from [17.115.233.79] (unknown [17.115.233.79]) (Authenticated sender: madler) by mail.alumni.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1299010AF13D; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:54:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.alumni.caltech.edu 1299010AF13D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alumni.caltech.edu; s=enforce; t=1522889671; bh=YL8jlpCcoxDDjcykm8FJ4zrJPSBAlZusVELKLV00TXs=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=RBMeE+tbcceFSEM4xFkXdTja0i/Rssi7hSk40zqBUhEdWseiktKu0Bbfl/1MN3tlz AqQ8mf1NO6nSiZnMZrPeJKCNMqzlH/1v0OnjgioNqYThmHWidu1D89Lv6JRQszfFZd hIrKbFfxmR7NEw6LnelauBxZRZ3Ps6b5xQ8AGM8M= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? From: Mark Adler In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:54:30 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> To: Jim Meyering X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) X-MailScanner-Information-Alumni: X-Alumni-MailScanner-ID: 1299010AF13D.A1B97 X-MailScanner-Alumni: No Virii found X-Spam-Status-Alumni: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.1, required 5, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.10, DKIM_VALID -0.10, DKIM_VALID_AU -0.10) X-MailScanner-From: madler@alumni.caltech.edu X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065-done Cc: 31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org, computing@windcheetah.org.uk X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) Jim, So gzip has run into a version 2.0 wall. Just out of curiosity, will the = next version be 1.91? 2.0? 1.A? Mark > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >=20 > tags 31065 notabug > stop >=20 > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Mark Adler = wrote: >> Jean-loup has not worked on gzip for many years, but I will leave it = to the gzip maintainers here to answer to their future intentions. >>=20 >> However pigz has that ability now with the --independent option, = where the block size defaults to 128K, and can be changed with the = --blocksize option. See http://zlib.net/pigz/ >=20 > Hi Mark, thanks for replying. >=20 > As for gzip vs. 2.0, I can say with confidence that we would strongly > discourage such an effort here. If you want that capability, use pigz. > While gzip is worth maintaining, it is definitely not the compression > tool of the future. >=20 > I've marked this as "notabug" and closed the issue in gzip's tracker, > but you're welcome to continue replying here. >=20 >=20 >=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 21:09:59 2018 Received: (at 31065-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 01:09:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38791 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3tPb-0000GW-27 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 21:09:59 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:45257) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3tPa-0000GK-9C for 31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 21:09:58 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id s9so24630495qke.12 for <31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 18:09:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Rh9CeZiJO3ukQkNQRJ5XhI42r1urQ0ylFDTGEZaFXlQ=; b=phmTy83S0HXcYK9WT6Q+lWVPHuyLGbLbDD9UToHAdhBRdysBVo27v2cbOP0Hu4g9jJ fXAY6oQa2CqA5glwFPvOdEi/vorgkVVW9Upb/WyS5/tB3S+N5zNhEM8/K21aWkmf/vPZ EAo8oKaig+YH5Ehxs50VfJHscUWtaIUW89MnZ8Gs9kvqvIQakfLm4CtnNwUWWS0NmP73 8lz51J/aSEkVdp4iF6u0eAz9uD3Efn/AT5VPHtIcIS09FJz/b+1ZMEPikxyiqSNSvr5B oQex7CifeK2bJ/90SyorvVtXzbMJmbSaJmw+8u2b5xYmQ1epZtBF1rpXCbyTOwZlunUR RTqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Rh9CeZiJO3ukQkNQRJ5XhI42r1urQ0ylFDTGEZaFXlQ=; b=WONLKMTjEOTYbZ+HIlVbbIkZ7OtzxgjO+Rda28hxa4EhoO7nvqFLQeY0fxbFU05v7k bWbvcUGKx/P0Pf99KAw9KjiRZsVS0XNT1tHrC+owWMYhRpJ4LZv7yYBKr7VUn1h19/Rw YjMV5dsx93I68Naf0lA2dTShM34uMD0q9+TaO2XxVXhVZulAstcHmEpXscFrUrCFFeD2 sIvEQ+Fx93y/7M6/sSBZDMgGRKp8GD86FP7gO+UrFIvAz5eF0eShdr16savaEkgEh0+V EOXpYJ1ryFYgGf5tx4mbssTJ+mM04gX65a3Gkl11q8bc3G6cIuHx7udK4NsvAHZRdBwC Av+g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCx8HO+SBxQbNxW6fHHvfYkpz4m87EcJ16FAlQIFpgbXvXjUsW/ 1KGnZaoTT4FYAGtvERkFyumAhB7DU1NRfsFTMgQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx489fLwDXbiaT1awCZXCB9IcTgn9YcUxVFpS3/cQaIxd4hJqkMEg4w9TERxUH1I4gkHA6v3rnfc97+PE4yOiDV4= X-Received: by 10.55.105.193 with SMTP id e184mr26519218qkc.352.1522890592716; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 18:09:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.98.4 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:09:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> From: Jim Meyering Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:09:32 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8PybtI8-YFpOa3J90Pxc9IYHjTc Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? To: Mark Adler Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065-done Cc: 31065-done@debbugs.gnu.org, computing@windcheetah.org.uk X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Mark Adler wrote: > So gzip has run into a version 2.0 wall. Just out of curiosity, will the next version be 1.91? 2.0? 1.A? I might have blindly chosen 1.10, since most are used to version-sorting for such numbers. But these version-number-lengthening events do make one think: not too long ago, I "incremented" 2.28 to 3.0 for grep. Now that you've raised the issue, maybe 2.0 to keep it short and simple. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 05 12:09:00 2018 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 16:09:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39588 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47Rc-0006Wj-6s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:09:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50389) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47Ra-0006WW-ES for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:08:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47RR-0002qG-LL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:08:53 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:34114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47RR-0002qC-IT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:08:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41339) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47RQ-00042j-J7 for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:08:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47RL-0002oS-Iv for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:08:48 -0400 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:39564) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47RL-0002o6-AK for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:08:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FB8161631; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id zs5a74z8G6zy; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B5F161668; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id DZldmi1RNZmo; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8898161631; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? To: bug-gzip@gnu.org References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:08:40 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: Jim Meyering , Mark Adler X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > maybe 2.0 to keep it > short and simple. I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code with pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it compatible with gzip and/or GNU in general, and call it gzip 2.0. In the meantime, we can keep the gzip 1 series around with the traditional implementation. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 05 12:30:27 2018 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 16:30:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39616 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47mN-00072M-Eq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:30:27 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60351) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f47mL-00072A-Sp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:30:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47mF-0005fn-OG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:30:20 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:49391) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47mF-0005fK-7s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:30:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51282) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47mB-0007An-9D for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:30:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47mA-0005XI-GI for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:30:15 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]:34759) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f47mA-0005Ww-CT for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:30:14 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id l18so27564276qtj.1 for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=wZZiVS4cSvF+iV242PrEPrxxmlbO/C2xFY1KrJAeDl4=; b=O+iDXEb1cKYgSBUEiyVvG2iph/tkq6XKFiRkQoVJr1RukTie4ZyChwn3loQCpG2PuR OqrEsoYWXOhmq4r/93qh8ac1u0WumpNZZXMMfpdun5HnkN14A8/G5HurobbGbvhODVk1 pOENe4CHwkXL7rv178MojAAjxdYNfXT2RbWCmK3JXD5YilbCZuUi5ujabsbWHSN9EEvT yctDX2L54pDbY0VZgqNYqggwFCS9OjvqRIW+dN2fN35mOMKP2SJlCXrlj/Z8BgRXRNf/ K55iOP+ApPejfo+AzD6yvZSFNhUNqRjNb9c94SzgXka+USLXksbWJ3OYct0jyzrLcdCg oHpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wZZiVS4cSvF+iV242PrEPrxxmlbO/C2xFY1KrJAeDl4=; b=T8M+9lQSrZi/2xfdf5AkLmE6ynZO5vlblpiB4laGX0ciVtTXCr81dJIW59TGeREWOv nDqRriO6hZ/7AVWm2vei/3nxRcEJXJE446QiY1dsab/HkKqbw4tYCFoJQ0MQbe7Yz6za +I2oePoylF/+rQnUo7+yCXwZin2daSAEHzX6srITn5dN3+Am+euKrM4BIHqsoP61/xop JcP0t3oH8ZGIr11ZSJX0CuL5NHgjGdX4qEt0+ZD8k7rEuKH9O/6vKe1nWNoeiNTCvC8o sTOIgNIkux6JMP2vg1rQjhQkTirXNGKu1Bz49nsPQzB4J0r1fYOgf+z1N0quj1QwP11W Bbmg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDikWo1cUjuHT0M55HcdmrAFAmmB+aJEEPhqC2uGOOSA1f5jDyv 3ZNIYRbT0cRmhqUbJuqKG3F9L8KMi/G3B2+KR3Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49Z9x2hBWnRwJYwGrgrhevMJx+1DcHIj2G1sw3uhQXDOIC3II4SIVoisLPWMnqIWTAlsLyvgqy92uJ8mO4/hrY= X-Received: by 10.200.26.148 with SMTP id x20mr33936435qtj.288.1522945813692; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.98.4 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:29:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> From: Jim Meyering Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:29:52 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: o9xXNkOkeNCr6xcEyPHihXFbiqU Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? To: Paul Eggert Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: Mark Adler , bug-gzip@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> maybe 2.0 to keep it >> short and simple. > > I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code with > pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it compatible with > gzip and/or GNU in general, and call it gzip 2.0. In the meantime, we can > keep the gzip 1 series around with the traditional implementation. I like it! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 05 13:21:19 2018 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 17:21:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39632 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f48Zb-0008Af-AD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:21:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43178) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f48ZZ-0008AT-5m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:21:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f48ZT-0000x9-5F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:21:12 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:50771) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f48ZT-0000wt-1f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:21:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34149) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f48ZR-0003aS-TM for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:21:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f48ZO-0000rA-Nc for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:21:09 -0400 Received: from mail.alumni.caltech.edu ([131.215.242.114]:26179) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f48ZO-0000pr-G2 for bug-gzip@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:21:06 -0400 Received: from [17.115.233.79] (unknown [17.115.233.79]) (Authenticated sender: madler) by mail.alumni.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E052710AFFD3; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.alumni.caltech.edu E052710AFFD3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alumni.caltech.edu; s=enforce; t=1522948849; bh=ILlkpIGEutz+o2NL7OxPy4TO6gbTNiezBZIyY4HN4S8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=OmYokOzKUsq5WgYi/Enh6hlbuxMGhYY54lEmz4GLM2+wYfjHZZhI4pkP3kvG6Us4a kRUR0xSDrdT0kjO6pMN/CvYM+UGcHCtcOlm9gEwZzJMdQQXU1FPhvs2uqBwS6EETIQ fZvkES0Lgn9NcPYFvf+GZigbxxpDATxvKzEKGP2Q= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? From: Mark Adler In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:20:48 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E50CF72-96B2-4E20-A57D-AE3D04659E67@alumni.caltech.edu> References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> To: Jim Meyering X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) X-MailScanner-Information-Alumni: X-Alumni-MailScanner-ID: E052710AFFD3.A20E2 X-MailScanner-Alumni: No Virii found X-MailScanner-From: madler@alumni.caltech.edu X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: Paul Eggert , bug-gzip@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Jim, I=E2=80=99d certainly support that, but it would take some work to make = pigz more portable. It depends on the POSIX pthread functions, where I = don=E2=80=99t know how that will play out on, for example, Windows. I = have an Android report where apparently pthread is not quite the same. = Also the pigz Makefile is pretty simple, and there is no configure for = where there might be system dependencies that need to be remedied. As a consequence, there would need to be a fair bit of testing to make = sure it works across a wide variety of systems. The current gzip has the = advantage of having been deployed over a very wide range of systems over = a long time, so a lot of portability issues have been worked out. Mark > On Apr 5, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Paul Eggert = wrote: >> On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>>=20 >>> maybe 2.0 to keep it >>> short and simple. >>=20 >> I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code = with >> pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it compatible = with >> gzip and/or GNU in general, and call it gzip 2.0. In the meantime, we = can >> keep the gzip 1 series around with the traditional implementation. >=20 > I like it! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 05 17:19:50 2018 Received: (at 31065) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2018 21:19:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39694 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f4CIQ-00057L-K2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:19:50 -0400 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:42064) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f4CIO-000578-LK for 31065@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:19:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9441160E97; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 95E5HXZOcRYF; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BDE160FA5; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:19:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id RWg2FcMVjosL; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1C2E160E97; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? To: Mark Adler , Jim Meyering References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> <1E50CF72-96B2-4E20-A57D-AE3D04659E67@alumni.caltech.edu> From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <71628729-b4af-c29f-c723-402d12fee227@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:19:41 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1E50CF72-96B2-4E20-A57D-AE3D04659E67@alumni.caltech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065 Cc: 31065@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) On 04/05/2018 10:20 AM, Mark Adler wrote: > As a consequence, there would need to be a fair bit of testing to make sure it works across a wide variety of systems. The current gzip has the advantage of having been deployed over a very wide range of systems over a long time, so a lot of portability issues have been worked out. Absolutely. I expect that most of the work will be testing and portability-enhancement. For example, we could use the Gnulib pthreads module to insulate the gzip code proper from the vagaries of threads on non-POSIX platforms (this won't work as well as native threads, but that's OK, gzip will still run). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 02 09:47:18 2018 Received: (at 31065) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 May 2018 13:47:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46503 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDs6I-0001Gc-8B for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 09:47:18 -0400 Received: from [89.234.186.82] (port=43790 helo=galex-713.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDs6B-0001Fu-KA for 31065@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 09:47:16 -0400 Received: from [::1] (helo=PC713) by galex-713.eu with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fDs3e-0001Pz-5Q; Wed, 02 May 2018 15:44:34 +0200 From: "Garreau\, Alexandre" To: Paul Eggert Subject: Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> User-Agent: Gnus (5.13), GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-FINGERPRINT: E109 9988 4197 D7CB B0BC 5C23 8DEB 24BA 867D 3F7F X-Accept-Language: fr, en, it, eo Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 15:44:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:08:40 -0700") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 2018-04-05 at 09:08, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> maybe 2.0 to keep it >> short and simple. > > I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code > with pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it > compatible with gzip and/or GNU in general, and call it gzip 2.0. In > the meantime, we can keep the gzip 1 series around with the > traditional implementation. [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065 Cc: 31065@debbugs.gnu.org, Jim Meyering , Mark Adler X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) On 2018-04-05 at 09:08, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> maybe 2.0 to keep it >> short and simple. > > I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code > with pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it > compatible with gzip and/or GNU in general, and call it gzip 2.0. In > the meantime, we can keep the gzip 1 series around with the > traditional implementation. I totally support this idea too! that=E2=80=99s at least=E2=80=A6 some months I was collecting a maildir of = all the mail mentioning pigz and the future of gzip here and there, waiting to be put in the References header of a mail I was still composing to ask what was gzip going to be now there=E2=80=99s pigz that seems to replace everything,= and be maintained by people active here, and I=E2=80=99m ignoring all this just= to say +1 to this. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 02 12:54:44 2018 Received: (at 31065) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 May 2018 16:54:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47265 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDv1g-0005so-5X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:54:44 -0400 Received: from [89.234.186.82] (port=47030 helo=galex-713.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDv1d-0005sb-LJ for 31065@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:54:43 -0400 Received: from [::1] (helo=PC713) by galex-713.eu with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fDsUx-0001bf-Ig; Wed, 02 May 2018 16:12:47 +0200 From: "Garreau\, Alexandre" To: Mark Adler Subject: relationship with Zlib? Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> <1E50CF72-96B2-4E20-A57D-AE3D04659E67@alumni.caltech.edu> User-Agent: Gnus (5.13), GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-FINGERPRINT: E109 9988 4197 D7CB B0BC 5C23 8DEB 24BA 867D 3F7F X-Accept-Language: fr, en, it, eo Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 16:12:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1E50CF72-96B2-4E20-A57D-AE3D04659E67@alumni.caltech.edu> (Mark Adler's message of "Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:20:48 -0700") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Sorry, in my excitement, I sent my last mail without looking at what I wanted to say/ask in my first draft: I’m not sure of recalling or understanding fully, but isn’t pigz somewhat linked with Zlib/Zlib code? and Zlib not being GNU, what would that mean? would it have to be separated? would gzip get Zlib as a mandatory dependency? How would that evolve? [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065 Cc: 31065@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, Jim Meyering X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) Sorry, in my excitement, I sent my last mail without looking at what I wanted to say/ask in my first draft: I=E2=80=99m not sure of recalling or understanding fully, but isn=E2=80=99t= pigz somewhat linked with Zlib/Zlib code? and Zlib not being GNU, what would that mean? would it have to be separated? would gzip get Zlib as a mandatory dependency? How would that evolve? As I understood anyway you Mark Adler the maintainer of Zlib are anyway quite active on these mailing-lists. Out of curiosity, and I=E2=80=99m pro= bably bad at formulating it at a quick glance but I=E2=80=99m not sure of what ar= e the relationships and differences between zlib and the (redundant? different? independant?) standalone compression tools it reimplements (or the other way around?), including gzip, especially when some people working on all these are the same: then there must be some relevant useful difference that justify the differenciation of both? I first learnt about pigz on a (french) (micro)blogger website [1], then I was really curious about why a such useful and uncontroversial change wouldn=E2=80=99t go upstream (as afaik stuff not going upstream for gcc or = glibc has been common for several times in their history), not only for gzip but also for lzip, xz, bzip2, etc. Thank you in advance for any answer! [1] fr: From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 02 12:54:47 2018 Received: (at 31065) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 May 2018 16:54:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47268 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDv1j-0005t3-Dc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:54:47 -0400 Received: from mail.alumni.caltech.edu ([131.215.242.114]:53424) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDv1g-0005sd-Vf for 31065@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:54:45 -0400 Received: from [17.115.235.14] (unknown [17.115.235.14]) (Authenticated sender: madler) by mail.alumni.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87A341109BD2; Wed, 2 May 2018 09:54:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.alumni.caltech.edu 87A341109BD2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alumni.caltech.edu; s=enforce; t=1525280060; bh=lzEbSkYO4427KrTwUfWTl6mKmh7fA92UYwMsFcMhm8E=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=jQX6I4FyB5mNduFslda/b0MpS8LCz1ULAThPwoMroediGxvwqGpYJ3yMNjQ3Mu/DI UznzsmMuSlQkrqKTP7NxwSUylr/EbmVQUreVEK4VPirNUpf5gS/Vft5SsWxaycjxB7 d8cL95HkJQ4HhSVExZHC/zj0V9xDcKcEEkZXB+g8= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Subject: Re: relationship with Zlib? Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? From: Mark Adler In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 09:54:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3122FC00-B2B3-4353-92DB-974CD77BCE98@alumni.caltech.edu> References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> <1E50CF72-96B2-4E20-A57D-AE3D04659E67@alumni.caltech.edu> To: "Garreau, Alexandre" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) X-MailScanner-Information-Alumni: X-Alumni-MailScanner-ID: 87A341109BD2.A06C7 X-MailScanner-Alumni: No Virii found X-Spam-Status-Alumni: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.1, required 5, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.10, DKIM_VALID -0.10, DKIM_VALID_AU -0.10) X-MailScanner-From: madler@alumni.caltech.edu X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065 Cc: 31065@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, Jim Meyering X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) pigz isn=E2=80=99t under GPL either. It has the same zlib license that = zlib has. Interestingly the =E2=80=9Czlib license=E2=80=9D has become a = thing onto itself and used by others, as one of the approved licenses by = FSF and OSI. FSF calls the zlib license =E2=80=9CGPL compatible=E2=80=9D, = whatever that means. For pigz to eventually replace and be called =E2=80=9Cgzip", does it = need to be under GPL? As to the history of gzip and zlib, gzip was written first, itself = derived from earlier Info-ZIP code. zlib was written a few years later = by the same authors for compression and decompression, but they both = made changes to the code and algorithms. So, for example, the compressed = data that comes out of gzip will generally be different than for zlib, = for the same input and compression level. They are completely compatible = with each other, conforming to the deflate format. I am not aware of any = reason that gzip couldn=E2=80=99t use zlib, but it just happens not to. > On May 2, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Garreau, Alexandre = wrote: >=20 > Sorry, in my excitement, I sent my last mail without looking at what I > wanted to say/ask in my first draft: >=20 > I=E2=80=99m not sure of recalling or understanding fully, but isn=E2=80=99= t pigz > somewhat linked with Zlib/Zlib code? and Zlib not being GNU, what = would > that mean? would it have to be separated? would gzip get Zlib as a > mandatory dependency? How would that evolve? >=20 > As I understood anyway you Mark Adler the maintainer of Zlib are = anyway > quite active on these mailing-lists. Out of curiosity, and I=E2=80=99m = probably > bad at formulating it at a quick glance but I=E2=80=99m not sure of = what are the > relationships and differences between zlib and the (redundant? > different? independant?) standalone compression tools it reimplements > (or the other way around?), including gzip, especially when some = people > working on all these are the same: then there must be some relevant > useful difference that justify the differenciation of both? >=20 > I first learnt about pigz on a (french) (micro)blogger website [1], = then > I was really curious about why a such useful and uncontroversial = change > wouldn=E2=80=99t go upstream (as afaik stuff not going upstream for = gcc or glibc > has been common for several times in their history), not only for gzip > but also for lzip, xz, bzip2, etc. >=20 > Thank you in advance for any answer! >=20 > [1] fr: From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 02 15:00:29 2018 Received: (at 31065) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 May 2018 19:00:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47323 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDwzN-0000NA-0V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 15:00:29 -0400 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:44186) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDwzK-0000Mw-P2 for 31065@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 15:00:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAE71600BA; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id V9rGTPcZDi22; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17571600E5; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id x_f8JSAE063Y; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4FCA1600E1; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#31065: relationship with Zlib? Re: bug#31065: Version 2?? To: Mark Adler , "Garreau, Alexandre" References: <1117840038.32709.1522876232781@email.1and1.co.uk> <11a7e83c-ef78-7254-5ccd-77b0a1e791ac@cs.ucla.edu> <1E50CF72-96B2-4E20-A57D-AE3D04659E67@alumni.caltech.edu> <3122FC00-B2B3-4353-92DB-974CD77BCE98@alumni.caltech.edu> From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <8baa3db2-ef90-9f7f-c67a-2edbd0e6c0dc@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 12:00:19 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3122FC00-B2B3-4353-92DB-974CD77BCE98@alumni.caltech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31065 Cc: 31065@debbugs.gnu.org, Jim Meyering X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Just as a heads-up, I've assigned to some of my students the job of rewriting gzip to use zlib; other way of putting it is to redo pigz to be as gzip-compatible as possible and to make it as portable as possible to non-POSIX environments. Early days yet. From unknown Mon Aug 11 18:15:26 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 11:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator