"rzip is not for everyone! The two biggest disadvantages are that you can't
pipeline rzip (so it can't read from standard input or write to standard
output), and that it uses lots of memory. A typical compression run on a large
file might use a couple of hundred MB of ram. If you have ram to bur
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> What about using .tar.7z files to fix those problems?
What about writing a gzip-like utility using the improved 7zip compression,
and doing that the way bzip and gzip are done (a very sane library we can
call directly from inside apps, and a command-lin
--- Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> There are more alternatives: http://rzip.samba.org/
>From the same web page:
"rzip is not for everyone! The two biggest disadvantages are that you can't
pipeline rzip (so it can't read from standard input or write to standard
output), and that it
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #include
> * Lars Wirzenius [Wed, Feb 15 2006, 10:42:02AM]:
>
>> (Once we use .tar.bz2, the sizes will be even smaller.)
>
> I cannot remember a clear consens from the "Size matters" thread, and
> IMO we should go for 7zip at least for source packages.
John Goerzen a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:45:21PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
* Lars Wirzenius [Wed, Feb 15 2006, 10:42:02AM]:
(Once we use .tar.bz2, the sizes will be even smaller.)
I cannot remember a clear consens from the "Size matters" thread, and
IMO we should go for
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:45:21PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Lars Wirzenius [Wed, Feb 15 2006, 10:42:02AM]:
>
> > (Once we use .tar.bz2, the sizes will be even smaller.)
>
> I cannot remember a clear consens from the "Size matters" thread, and
> IMO we should go for 7zip at least
6 matches
Mail list logo
