On 09/16/2009 08:39 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 08:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> This is a logical leap. rsync has forked zlib but they are only using >> the fork internally. 2 and 3 get that fork out in the open so that >> more >> than one program can use it. 2 and 3 are solutions when solution 1 >> fails. Since solution 1 has failed, 2 and 3 become *relevant*, not >> moot. > > I beg your pardon, but how are rsync and zsync supposed to use upstream > zlib (points 2,3) if the upstream lib does not have the features they > need ??? > Ah -- I was reading that as three separate options. I can see how it could be read as three steps in a single solution as well. That still leaves open the question of why no one has asked rsync upstream to make their fork publicly available instead of hoarding it as a private, internal copy. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
