On 09/16/2009 06:43 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:32 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Looking through the mailing list archives, as far as I can tell, noone
> has tried this course of action yet:
>
> 1) Ask zlib upstream to accept the changes that the rsync devs made to
> zlib and issue a new release
> 2) Ask rsync upstream to support the new version of zlib
> 3) Ask zsync upstream to support the new version of zlib
>
> Surely that's the right solution, and the first thing that should be
> tried?
My recollection is that 1 was tried and upstream said no.
This was tried by upstream rsync.
So 2,3 became
moot.
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.
-Toshio