Message-Id:	<199611102136.KAA20262@papaioea.manawatu.gen.nz>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <malcolm AT mail DOT manawatu DOT gen DOT nz>
From:	"Malcolm Taylor" <malcolm AT manawatu DOT gen DOT nz>
Organization:	Grafik Software
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:35:21 +1200
Subject:	Re: Why not to use 'tar' before packing DJGPP?
Reply-to:	malcolm AT manawatu DOT gen DOT nz

> On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Malcolm Taylor wrote:
> > Anyway if the point is to reduce the size of the archives, then why 
> > not go for a better archiver? The compression algorithm in zip is 
> > around 3-4 years old technologically speaking, and there are many far 
> > better archivers available today that dispense the need for tarring 
> 
> IMHO, better compression ratios is not always good enough reason to switch
> to another compressor.  Do we really think everybody out there (GNU sites,
> SimTel sites) are so stupid in that they continue using this ``old''
> compression technology?  Do savings in disk storage (which is about the

The major point here is savings in download times. I agree disk space 
is cheap.

> cheapest asset nowadays) indeed justify turning our back on compatibility? 
> I'm not sure. 

Yup, compatibility is the one major thing going for pkzip. Because of 
info-zip, zip format files have become the defacto standard. I'm just 
suggesting that it is about time this standard got revised :)
 
> And btw, at least in my book, availability of free source code to the 
> (un)compressors we use is also very important.  (How else would I be able 
> to make UnZip LFN-aware in less than a day?)  AFAIK, most ``modern'' 
> compressors don't comply to this requirement.

I agree, esp. with regard to a project like DJGPP (eg for inclusion in 
the installer). That is why I offered to write one. If there is 
interest in it I would be able to write and release source code 
(probably under GPL) and hence fulfill this requirement.

Malcolm

- Raw text -