From: mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Why not to use 'tar' before packing DJGPP?
Date: 9 Nov 1996 11:29:43 GMT
Organization: Oxford University, England
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <561pv7$36c@news.ox.ac.uk>
References: <32823D97 DOT 44DD AT sabat DOT tu DOT kielce DOT pl> <3282A82E DOT 7EE7 AT cs DOT com> <55vapk$s4l AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <babcock DOT 847510845 AT cybercom DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sable.ox.ac.uk
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Robert Babcock (babcock AT shell1 DOT cybercom DOT net) wrote:
: mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot) writes:

: >If the proposition is to tar the source, then zip it up, why not tar it, 
: >then zip it along with untar.exe (or whatever) and instructions?

: If the goal is to shrink the distribution files without requiring the
: use of a utility which may not be easily available to DOS users, you
: could first make uncompressed ZIP files, then compress those.

Sorry, I don't really understand tar (yes, I'm a Dos user...), but I 
thought the point of the original article was that tar could achieve 
better compression ratios than zip? The quoted figures certainly looked 
impressive...

--
George Foot

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ |""""""""""""""""""""""|
>Email: george DOT foot AT merton DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk      < |Snail Mail:(*)        |
>   or: mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk          < | _     George Foot    |
>  Web: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0407/ < |(@)    Merton College |
>  Ftp: mc31.merton.ox.ac.uk (#)         < |~~~~   Oxford OX1 4JD |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |______________________|
(#) Theoretically...    ||    (*) Please allow 28 days for delivery