Message-Id: <36F17BC3.78B926E4@cableol.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:18:43 +0000
From: Allens <allen DOT asjp AT cableol DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: (fwd) Compression
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 9903181622370 DOT 1074-100000 AT narnia DOT n DOT ml DOT org> <199903182135 DOT QAA30067 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

I'm sure I heard somewhere that tgz's are based around the same 
algorithm as zips, so why the mega space saving?  (Perhaps because
they use a different algorithm?)

			Peter Allen

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Would it really be hard to have each package stored in more than one
> > format, such as a regular gzip'd/bzip2'd tarball for Linuxians, a
> > PkZip-compatible .zip for Microsoftians, etc.?
> 
> First off, I don't produce *every* zip in djgpp.  Many are contributed
> by others.
> 
> Second, djgpp is currently (quick typing) 288Mb.  Supporting multiple
> formats is NOT an option, just because of disk space.
> 
> The only format I'd consider switching to is .tar.gz, which djtar can
> unpack, but even then we'd have to provide a 16-bit version of djtar
> that supports LFNs, since tgz isn't a standard format in dos/windows.
> 
> file    zip     tgz
> djdev   1.42M   1.36M
> djlsr   1.45M   0.87M