On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:49:53 PM UTC-5, heiphohmia wrote: > > > Could .gz or .bz2 be used instead? I think those are stable.
I tested it, and tar.bz2 seems stable but tar.gz changes its md5sum each time I run tar -czf. That is very surprising because I'm almost positive that tar.gz was (empirically) stable a few years ago. I wonder whether we can depend on tar.bz2 being stable in the long run. Norm > > Either of those would be great. Typically, bzip2 wins on compression and > gzip > on speed. In this case, bzip2 is probably a good choice. > > In the off chance it's helpful, here are the standard command line > invocations > on unix for creating bzip2 and gzip archives of some directory: > > $ tar -cjf new-bzip2-archive.tar.bz2 path/to/contents > $ tar -czf new-gzip-archive.tar.gz path/to/contents > > > The -c flag "creates" an archive, the -j and -z flags compress with bzip2 > and gzip respectively. The -f flag specifies the archive path. > > And just in case the use of tar seems mysterious, the reason we need it > here is > because bzip2 and gzip are simply compression formats, meaning they only > work > on single files. So we use tar to first "archive" a collection of paths > into a > single file and compress the result. This is a common enough operation > that tar > simply provides convenience flags that do the wrapping for us. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/f9e39cab-e9ca-4cc1-bb5d-90e7991f2551%40googlegroups.com.
