Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Emit a RFC 1952 compatible XFL flag again #138

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 30, 2017

Conversation

est31
Copy link
Member

@est31 est31 commented Nov 30, 2017

RFC 1952 specifies the following values
for the XFL flag:

  • 2: maximum compression, slowest
  • 4: fastest algorithm config

Commit 7e0390b has
changed our behaviour from conforming to that
to setting the XFL flag to 9 when compression
is best, and 0 when it is the fastest one.

We revert that change in order to have consistent
output with pre 1.0.0 versions of flate2 and also
to be consistent with RFC 1952 and the ecosystem
around it, e.g. unix tooling that assumes the
RFC specified layout for the XFL flag.

Fixes #137.

RFC 1952 specifies the following values
for the XFL flag:

* 2: maximum compression, slowest
* 4: fastest algorithm config

Commit 7e0390b has
changed our behaviour from conforming to that
to setting the XFL flag to 9 when compression
is best, and 0 when it is the fastest one.

We revert that change in order to have consistent
output with pre 1.0.0 versions of flate2 and also
to be consistent with RFC 1952 and the ecosystem
around it, e.g. unix tooling that assumes the
RFC specified layout for the XFL flag.

Fixes rust-lang#137.
@est31
Copy link
Member Author

est31 commented Nov 30, 2017

I would love to have this added to a new 1.0.1 release. Especially, it would be really great to have this fix released before Cargo switches to flate2 1.0.

@alexcrichton alexcrichton merged commit e5036e6 into rust-lang:master Nov 30, 2017
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

@est31
Copy link
Member Author

est31 commented Nov 30, 2017

@alexcrichton thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants