Opened 14 years ago

Closed 14 years ago

Last modified 14 years ago

#2214 closed task (wontfix)


Reported by: willimm Owned by: lfs-book@…
Priority: normal Milestone: Future
Component: Book Version: SVN
Severity: normal Keywords:


It is at There are a number of advantages compared to Gzip and Bzip2:

  • The average compression ratio of LZMA is about 30% better than that of gzip, and 15% better than that of bzip2.
  • While the decompression speed is slightly slower than gzip, it is two to four times faster than Bzip2.
  • In fast mode, compresses faster than bzip2 with a comparable compression ratio. However, achieving the best compression ratio is slower than bzip2, but doesn't affect decompression speed.
  • A very similar command line interface that is like what gzip and bzip2 have.
  • Tar-1.20 and higher can unconpress LZMA-commpresed tarballs with the --lzma switch.
  • And it's licenced under both the GNU GPL and LGPL.

No wonder why most of the newer GNU packages come in lzma and gzip (not Bzip2). And there may be a few lzma-only tarballs along the road, like the Texlive source. I think this package should be in LFS.

Change History (6)

comment:1 by bdubbs@…, 14 years ago

Milestone: 6.4Future

comment:5 by Matthew Burgess, 14 years ago

Resolution: wontfix
Status: newclosed

William, please respect the decisions of the LFS editors. LZMA is not a requirement of any package in LFS. As we try to keep LFS finely balanced between functional & minimal, I don't see how LZMA fits into the book at present.

That said, I do see the benefits of having instructions for how to compile and install it for those that think they could make use of it.

As you seem keen to contribute to LFS, would you mind creating a page for this on the BLFS Wiki (I'd guess under is as good a place as any)? Then post a link to that page to the blfs-dev list asking (not demanding) that those instructions be included in the BLFS book. If you fancy, you could even contribute a patch to BLFS' XML following the instructions at to download the sources. That way it makes it much quicker and easier for the editors to see that ticket resolved as all they have to do is review and apply the patch.



PS: In future any more demands from you are likely to be met with the contempt they deserve and you may well see yourself unsubscribed from the lists. Bear in mind that all the editors here are volunteers and don't owe anyone anything. They tackle tickets that are primarily of interest to them and the overall direction LFS is heading.

comment:7 by Matthew Burgess, 14 years ago

Resolution: wontfix
Status: reopenedclosed


Your actions are coming across as very rude. You've repeatedly been asked not to reopen tickets, so please don't. If you wish to see this in BLFS, please follow my advice above and open a ticket for BLFS (see



comment:8 by willimm, 14 years ago

Resolution: wontfix
Status: closedreopened

And please move this into 7.0.

comment:9 by Jeremy Huntwork, 14 years ago

Resolution: wontfix
Status: reopenedclosed

Every time you do this, you kill just a little more any chance you have of getting yourself heard. Respect for you or your opinion is pretty much nil at the moment. It's sad, because you're doing it to yourself. If you had only listened and respected the decision of the current devs, they may have in turn respected your input.

comment:10 by willimm, 14 years ago

I just REALLY want LZMA into 7.0.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.