Re: deb + tar + bzip2 suggestion
Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
> In article <[🔎] q9ogxzmbiu.fsf@fphp16.tphys.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> you wrote:
>
> I'm the tar maintainer for Debian, among other things.
>
> : -z filter through gzip, bzip, bzip2 as appropriate
>
> : That would be a nice thing.
>
> But really hard to get right for compression. :-) For decompression, it is
> conceivable that you could pick the right executable based on magic number or
> something, but I'm pretty sure the upstream tar maintainer wouldn't go for it.
One could use the file extension for compression or always use gzip
for it. I don't so much care about the compression, but more about
decompression.
> I'm satisfied with the current situation where both gzip and bzip2 are
> supported by their own command-line options. Heck, you can even call
> 'compress' if you have it with the Z option...
tar -xz will compress using gzip and gzip knows about gzip, zip,
compress, compress -H or pack. (as my manpage states).
tar might be the wrong place to implement bzip2 support, gzip looks to
be the right tool to change.
Are there any reasons why gzip shouldn't recognise bzip and bzip2
files as well and handle them via bzip and bzip2 respectively?
Memusage, speed and definitions of .deb are no reason, because nobody
would be forced to use that feature.
> : If tar would behave like that, one could
> : make gzip or bzip2 deb files depending on once likeing.
>
> Not without changing the definition of and standards associated with .deb
> files. That's far more significant than just changing tar's behaviour.
Using it for .deb was only one example, the tar.gz files could be another.
> The bzip2 tool is vastly less well deployed than gzip, so you'd be making
> it much harder for folks not running Debian boxes to play. You would also have
> to add bzip2 to the base/essential list in Debian, and it's not clear to me
> that having two compression engines in base is a good use of floppy space.
The boot floppies wont have to contain bzip2, that could be in base or
could be a package just like now. As I said above, using it for .deb
was only an example.
> Put me on record as not being thrilled about this proposal.
You seem to be against changing tar, and I agree there, gzip is a
better place for it. So after this mail are you against changeing gzip
to recognise bzip2 as well or are just against changeing the .deb
definition?
May the Source be with you.
Mrvn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: