At 05:58 PM 2/8/2001 +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 05:39 PM 2/8/2001 +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > >Do we really want to use tar format (over say cpio) as tar rounds files
> > >up to 512 block boundaries, and has some arbitrary restrictions on
> filename
> > >lengths in the headers?
> >
> > Having the perl archives splittable by other available tools is a good
> > thing. Using the zip format's fine too--I don't much care either way.
>
>Yes, I agree. Hence cpio may not be great as tools to deal with it
>are much rarer
Yup, and finding them on non-unix platforms can be rather tricky, too. Zip
and tar are probably the two biggies.
>\zip's better in that it allows easy random access to a compressed file,
>[without having to compress everything else first] but worse for the
>same reason because you don't get as good a compression ratio by
>compressing each file separately.
I've seen it go both ways with compression, but I'm not sure that a few
percent either way's a big deal. Packaging is more important than
compression for this purpose anyway, I think.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
