>> So what's wrong with using the GNU version of tar that's supplied
>> with most of the Linux distributions. I've just tried it out, and
>> the following command deals with the 2.2.0-pre4 kernel quite
>> happily...
>> Q> tar tv --use-compress bzip2 -f l*2.2*4*2
>> As far as I know, that version of tar is included in every version
>> of Linux there is, as well as being provided with SunSolaris...
> That method is about two dozen characters too cumbersome.
Agreed, but it doesn't make bzip2 any less supported...
> Way easier is just forget 'z' (and 'f') and do:
> bunzip2 < your.interesting.tar.bz2 | tar tvv
I can't try that at the moment, but if the tar manpage is any guide,
that won't work as tar without the -f assumes /dev/rmt0 as the input
source, and that doesn't even exist on my system...
I think you wanted the following line instead...
Q> bunzip2 < l*2.2*4*2 | tar tvvf -
Does that help?
> The question begun as `` Shall the mirrors be required to always
> carry both GZ and BZ2 files, or shall only one of the forms be
> standardized into use ? If the latter, which ? ''
That's not how I read the thread, so I must apologise for
misunderstanding it...
My reading was "Shall mirrors which decide not to carry both GZ and
BZ2 files be required to standardise on GZ or BZ2 ?"
> If the primary archive chooses to have ONLY BZ2 files, and no GZ,
> I would have no trouble (I would even like it for space reasons),
> but given the selection in between two existing sets of files, each
> complete in themselves, I am conservative and support long
> established GZ format based on existing easy to use, and familiar
> (to large number of people) tools.
In the context you've placed it, I agree with your reasoning, although
my personal preference would be to switch to BZ2 for space reasons,
and provide a copy of bzip2 for those who don't have one available...
> Doubling the disk-space requirement for the mirror by having two
> merely differently compressed formats is not something mirror
> runners like, as both subsets have size exceeding 2 GB, storing
> both of them into the archive is by no means a trivial thing to do.
> We do have to choose what to store/mirror, and there a 2G volume is
> a decission item.
As a mirror runner myself, I know exactly what you mean...
> Another issue is that in Finland all major (and minor) ISPs offer
> flat-rate dialin services rendering the question about download
> time quite irrelevant in here...
I think we're misunderstanding each other here, so can I clarify that
I was referring to the TOTAL cost of downloading, not just to the
ISP's charges...
As an example, here in the UK, most ISP's offer access for a flat
monthly parment, with no charge beyond that. However, they do so on
telephone numbers for which one is charged to dial to by the relevant
telecom company, and THAT charge is by the second, and in some cases
can be quite expensive...
As far as I'm aware, the USA and Canada are the only two countries
where local calls are free of charge. Certainly one pays for local
calls in the UK...
Best wishes from Riley.
--- * ftp://ps.cus.umist.ac.uk/pub/rhw/Linux * http://ps.cus.umist.ac.uk/~rhw/kernel.versions.html
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/