Charles Duffy wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Daniel Veillard wrote: >>> Hum, I realize that support of LZOP was added after 0.7.0, so we never >>> made a release with it (well except for git snapshot which may have been >>> pushed). >>> I wonder if the best is not to just drop the lzop option altogether >>> and stick xz as a package dependancy until we have found a way to >>> provide at the API level which compression options are actually >>> available. >>> >>> Opinions ? >> >> Dropping lzop sounds good. It seems lzop is not very popular. >> We don't need that many choices. > > lzop may not be popular, but it is distinct -- a minimum of 3x faster > than every other compressor offered as an option. > > As the decision to use compression at all is offered as a disk space > vs performance tradeoff, having an option with minimal performance > impact is crucial inasmuch as it makes compression valuable to users > for whom the tradeoff otherwise might not have made sense at all. Good point about it being one of the fastest. I shouldn't have mentioned the subjective "popular". Usefulness trumps that. I suppose Daniel, Cc'd, will decide. -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list