Hello,
I have a server archive created with tar and bzip2 (via -j tar option) on
OpenBSD 5.3 GENERIC#50 i386
Now, I'm trying to extract it on a new machine, but I'm getting error:
cd /server
doas tar xjf /path/whole_server_archive-20151101.tar.bz2
bzip2: I/O or other error, b
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[re Has anyone looked at zopfli]
> If we did add it, it would only benefit the fast architectures, since
> the others cannot afford the additional build time. Developers would
> use up the space gains quickly. Right now a few architectures ar
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> [...]
> > If anyone thinks using this for the install or boot media is going to
> > help, don't say a word until you can prove it on all platforms.
>
> Has anyone looked at zopfli[1] for the install media? It's a (apache
> 2 licensed)
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[...]
> If anyone thinks using this for the install or boot media is going to
> help, don't say a word until you can prove it on all platforms.
Has anyone looked at zopfli[1] for the install media? It's a (apache
2 licensed) slightly better b
with C code.
> >>
> >> But even more so than with nl(1), why would we want to use something
> >> that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
> >> base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
> >> s
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> It is primarily used by ports.
Before t2k13, there were 739 .tar.bz2|.tbz2 distfiles--compared to
268 .tar.xz|.txz ones. I don't know how fast that balance is
shifting.
There are some 40 ports that directly depend on libbz2, and some
10 more that pull it in indirectly by
mething
>> that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
>> base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
>> simply use the standard bzip2 code.
>
>I don't have a problem with importing bzip2, per se. But iirc previous
>di
x27;s different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
> base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
> simply use the standard bzip2 code.
I don't have a problem with importing bzip2, per se. But iirc previous
discussions basically ended with "it adds
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, David Coppa wrote:
> > But even more so than with nl(1), why would we want to use something
> > that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
> > base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
> > simpl
would we want to use something
> that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
> base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
> simply use the standard bzip2 code.
Seconded.
ciao,
David
> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:59:39 -0400
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> Something that comes up from time to time is the question of whether
> to import bzip2 into base or not. Turns out the question is moot
> because already have imported it. There's a copy in perl. (I did
On 2013/06/06 08:04, Janne Johansson wrote:
> If it covers that tar needs for "tar xjf bla.tbz2" to work then this would
> be a good addition.
That needs support for -d (and -c but we have that already).
If it covers that tar needs for "tar xjf bla.tbz2" to work then this would
be a good addition.
2013/6/6 Ted Unangst
> Something that comes up from time to time is the question of whether
> to import bzip2 into base or not. Turns out the question is moot
> because alrea
Something that comes up from time to time is the question of whether
to import bzip2 into base or not. Turns out the question is moot
because already have imported it. There's a copy in perl. (I didn't
know this until I happened to be watching a build closer than usual.)
Since we alread
14 matches
Mail list logo
