gzip does not provide keep input files option

Is this symptom still reproducible in 8.10?

We are closing this bug report because it lacks the information we need to investigate the problem, as described in the previous comments. Please reopen it if you can give us the missing information, and don't hesitate to submit bug reports in the future. To reopen the bug report you can click on the current status, under the Status column, and change the Status back to New. Thanks again!.

Sorry for the long silence. Confirming same bug present with gzip 1.3.12-6ubuntu2 as shipped with Intrepid and Jaunty. Same patch is still applicable.

If only someone could take it up to just check through the few lines modified by the patch, ensure that it doesn't kill anyone's precious files, and check it in. It is really a little harmless yet very useful patch. Why has it been delayed over a year to be accepted?

Guys, it's over two years since I submitted this bug. It's just a trifling little patch. Can't it be included in the release? gzip *still* lacks this elementary feature.

Please add this patch. gzip has the -c option, but it just prints everything to standard output, that is not enough.

People, it's now nearing four years since I submitted this bug *along* with a patch. Can't you please add this functionality or even *reply* saying why you can't do it?

Please note that we are very resistant in applying such patches ourselves, as we'd have to maintain them forever. It's a lot better to engage in a discussion with upstream, and at least file an upstream bug with the patch as well, so that it can eventually go there.

Also, the patch is not complete, as it doesn't update the manpage accordingly. Doing so will also invalidate all existing translations of the manpages, all these problems that you have if you do downstream patches.

So to be frank, I don't expect this to be applied anytime soon. I subscribed ubuntu-sponsors, though, perhaps someone has a better connection to gzip upstream.

Thanks for your replies and your explanation. As I noted in the report four years ago, I did contact upstream but nobody replied. I hope some "connections" snap in place. I will wait for any updates.

Shriramana, I agree with Martin above. It can be frustrating to have a patch ignored for weeks, let alone four years so I feel for you.

I'd advise however to leave this, as it is unlikely to get upstream, and will definitely not be in Ubuntu if it is not upstream.
Think of the scenario when we start carrying this patch and people start taking advantage of this option in their scripts. Suddenly those script won't run on older Ubuntu versions, and worse they won't run on Debian.Fedora etc, creating new sources of frustration and time wasted.

I think the only sensible way to change core system stuff is to engage with upstream. Given that gzip upstream does not seem to be what one calls 'active development mode' this issue is better left as is, and let's live with gzip as it is now.
If bzip2 has that option you need, that may be a better tool to use in your scenario that gave rise to this patch.
I think it will save you time to just forget about this patch however much time you spent on it and advocating it. Your skills and time could be put to much better use in Ubuntu or or other projects by working on patches that benefit many users and that have good chances of getting accepted by active maintainers.
Thanks again for your contribution, failure to get this into Ubuntu is not anyone's fault, old software just tends to not add to many features and is not the most rewarding place to be contributing to. And while Ubuntu adds polish and sometimes enhances upstream projects, we do not do it in such subtle ways that could trip up unaware users.

Thanks for your kind feedback Jani (and Martin). I understand the situation... even if I don't entirely accept it personally.

Upstream Debian reports this fixed with further upstream (core gzip) version 1.6 -- thankfully the gzip developers decided to include this directly: http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=7623.

And indeed in Trusty (actually since Saucy, but I hadn't noticed it) I have this option to keep me happy! :-)