Re: Re: OT Re: Advantage of debs?
- To: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Re: OT Re: Advantage of debs?
- From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@csh.rit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 13:53:21 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20000103135321.A16180@csh.rit.edu>
- In-reply-to: <19991224161808.D10315@rising.com.au>; from hamish@debian.org on Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 04:18:08PM +1100
- References: <199912222240.RAA34683@bugg.strangled.net> <19991224161808.D10315@rising.com.au>
On Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 04:18:08PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 05:40:25PM -0500, dan wrote:
> > Thats the same way freebsd packages contain configuration files, packing
> > lists, installation scripts, etc. We weren't talking about dropping that,
> > but adapting it into zips for compression and file access..
>
> Yuck. .tar.gz compresses better. .tar.bz2 even better. zip is an ugly
> DOSism.
Yes, compressed tarballs tend to yield better overall compression, but that's
not the only reason for choosing an archive format. The zip format has a
central directory that allows any file in the archive to be extracted without
decompressing the entire archive. This is not true of compressed tarballs.
Just the facts...
--
- mdz
Reply to: