Patches to make GNU gzip and BusyBox gzip produce identical compression results

Kang-Che Sung explorer09 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 5 12:32:09 UTC 2019


Well, it seems that Denys merged the changes before I have the time to
respond to comments, but anyway:

I actually disliked the argument about "de-facto standard" on compression
levels. I think scripts should not depend on the default compression level,
and should instead specify it explicitly. The reason is that you can not
guarantee the 'gzip' on one machine is the same implementation on another
(there are implementations that use more extensive search, for example,
7-zip and zopfli), it is just a coincidence that BusyBox gzip uses an
implementation that's compatible with the most popular (zlib, I think), but
it shouldn't be "guaranteed", let alone becoming a "standard" on
implementaion or on the default behaviors.

I am not suggesting to change the patch now. I'm just mentioning that
relying on default behavior of any program, for any script, is a bad idea
in general. (E.g. Do specify -6 if your script expects it, even though it
seems redundant, because user setting can always override the program
defaults.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20190905/9c2adb3e/attachment.html>


More information about the busybox mailing list