On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: > I've written a tiny archiver, which I've called "wrap" for lack of a > better name. It is 120 lines of C, and yields far smaller archives > than tar while overcoming the various crippling limitations of ar. It > does, however, only store files - subdirectories are implicit. > Interestingly during testing the best compression results came from > our very own sflate.
The one thing that leaps out at me is that there's no checksumming of either the individual files or the whole the archive file performed, so if you give it a damaged archive you won't be able to tell or isolate the damaged files. To be fair, whilst tar appears to only checksum the file headers, so it you go and "damage" a tar archive outside of that range it doesn't detect it, but then being better than tar is, as you noticed, quite a low hurdle :-) -- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
