On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 12:34:06PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 11:26, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That would be going above & beyond what's needed IMO, but still a lot > > easier than the daunting task of writing a specification that exactly > > described GNU gzip's current behavior, to the point where you could > > clean-room implement it and be guaranteed byte-for-byte compatibility. > > Why does it have to be gzip? It is not that hard to come up with a historical reasons?
