| 1 |
Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Samstag, 22. September 2007, Florian Philipp wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
>> star supports p7zip which can be much better and especially more |
| 5 |
>> flexible than bzip2, gzip and zip. Its other features (better |
| 6 |
>> funcionality for acl, sparse files, recovery and backups among other |
| 7 |
>> things) didn't sound bad, either. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I don't know - bzip2 is very good at 'recovery' because only the affected |
| 10 |
> block is lost. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
True - in theory. It doesn't help you much, if you lose a block in a |
| 13 |
.tar.bz2 file, as the block sizes of bzip2 and tar won't overlap. Thus, |
| 14 |
something like ".bz2.tar" would be better, meaning a tar which contains |
| 15 |
pre compressed files. Granted, compression ratio would be worse. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you want safety, I'd either suggest afio or maybe something like |
| 18 |
par. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> and if p7zip supports pipes, you don't need its support in tar. Just pipe |
| 21 |
> from/to it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It does and that's the way it's supposed to be used on unix, according |
| 24 |
to its manpage. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> as you can see, you need to play around with pipes anyway when you use |
| 27 |
> star. So switching just because of one compression algo and become |
| 28 |
> incompatible with the way emerge unpacks packages sounds pretty stupid |
| 29 |
> IMHO. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
ACK |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Alexander Skwar |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives