From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Subject: Re: ANSWER: (Re: GCC report segmentation fault and dump core.) Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:11:43 GMT
In article <1992Oct12.154350.17599@bnr.ca>, minyard@crchh453.bnr.ca (Corey Minyard) writes:
| True, but zoo is better. It has a high-compression rate, individual file
| munging recovery, and it supports directory hierarchies.
If your zip doesn't support file hierarchies you have a relic. I like
zoo, my name is on a lot of stuff in it, and I'm the author of the
user's guide. But zip is significantly faster and produces marginally
better compression, and is far more popular in spite of the ghastly user
interface. Zip and unzip are separate programs, written by separate
groups, with separate options, and it really shows, I plead guilty to
having been in both of them, too.
I use zoo personally, too, because versions are really useful (and I
have a munged version which is a lot faster than the production
release). But the world has gone with zip and I'm not going to waste
time fighting it, particularly since Rahul is doing other things and
isn't actively releasing new zoo versions, even incorporating
enhancements people send him.
| And a technical reason why we won't:
|
| 1. zip and zoo do not support file modes, owners, or groups.
Archives of individual package sources don't need this, and won't have
it unless you extract as root, anyway. And zoo/zip'd tar files are
seriously smaller than compressed tars. Hell, freeze is better than
compress, and essentially a drop in replacement. People don't use that
much, either.
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.