From: Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>
Date: 2002-01-15T08:00:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Best way for platf. independent compression?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:50:39AM +0900, Erik B�gfors wrote:
> > > Developer Tools. It a pretty safe bet that she did in order to build
> > > ruby in the first place.
> > Good, this leaves a door open.
> No,  Hopefully there will be binary packages for the average-user to
> install.  They might not have tar.

<sound of door shutting>

> > So it seems that we're not limited to GNU tar.  That's good news.
> Also.  Using this format will work with ALL tar's (at least that I've
> seen)
> gzip -dc filename.tar.gz | tar xf -

Whether it is reasonable to think that every tar user also has
gzip... is left as an exercise to the reader.  <sigh>

> Not at all.
> lots of unices does
> 1) Not include a gnutar (but that's solvable as shown above)
> 2) Not include a gzip but only the old compress/uncompress programs.

I see.

> > - Windows: winzip could maybe do it.
> Winzip costs money.  Don't expect everyone to have it.  I don't.

I thought the downloadable version just had a nag screen but was
otherwise usable, wasn't it?

> I also believe in a all-Ruby solution.  I believe in using a
> ruby/zlib-module and then coding something in it.  That would ofcourse
> require everyone to install ruby/zlib but that's a one-time-thing.  I
> feels more natural to install a library than to install binaries that
> you might need to have in your path.

I agree, especially the ``...need in your path'' part.  Yet I would
agree even more if it were possible to reimplement a minimalistic
tar-gzipped compatible format in Ruby by using ruby/zlib.  Does it
sound too optimistic?  (I don't even know if it sounds realistic, I've
*no* experience on compression.)

Massimiliano