On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 12:41 -0600, Henry Hertz Hobbit wrote: > On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 00:08 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> I would say it a little differently than that Werner. bzip2 is NOT part > of Windows. It sounds to me like you are asking for the world. Which > ZIP add on program do you want the GnuPG team to standardize on? On > the 'nix systems they just call bzip2 natively via pipes. On Windows > that becomes a problem with anything other than ZIP, because everything > else is an add-on. In other words, yes they could demand that you use > 7-Zip Or they use the libraries. Either way, it is there natively on 'nix systems. What I am trying to tell you is that bzip2 is NOT there natively on Windows. Oh yes, the 7-Zip produces a substantial more amount of compression than bzip2. $ 7z a OutBox.7z ./OutBox $ tar -cjf OutBox.tbz ./OutBox $ chmod 644 OutBox.7z $ ls -l OutBox.* -rw-r--r-- 1 hhhobbit hhhobbit 6916234 Jul 18 13:10 OutBox.7z -rw-r--r-- 1 hhhobbit hhhobbit 9947335 Jul 18 13:11 OutBox.tbz Need I say more? I have shifted to 7-zip when I can. It is too bad they didn't add enough information for UID:GID in 7-zip. The way around it is to tar first and pipe that to 7z. That isn't bad for an algorithm that was created on Windows. Keep that in mind people. But be sympathetic to the GnuPG team (all of them). They are working their little hearts for us and I for one MUST say ... THANK YOU! HHH _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
