Message-ID: <01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A4021F16@emwatent02.meters.com.au>
From: "Da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
To: "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: TGZ compression (was Greed, nee DPMS info)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:21:17 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

See below ...

Joe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Patrick Moran [SMTP:pmoran22 AT yahoo DOT com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, 30 January 2001 17:07
> To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:	Re: TGZ compression (was Greed, nee DPMS info)
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
> To: <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 9:55 PM
> Subject: RE: TGZ compression (was Greed, nee DPMS info)
> 
> 
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Note however, that the possible "large file" problem is with UNTGZ,
> 
> A long, long time ago, DoSLinux which was called DILINUX back then was
> distributed using .tgz and came with UNTGZ. It was about 9MB is size
> compressed. I had no problem unzipping the file and installing DOSLinux
> with it.
> 
	[da Silva, Joe]  

	Thanks for that clue. With this new information, I went back and
	re-tested UNTGZ ... and came to the conclusion that the _real_
	problem is that UNTGZ, although it supports GZIPped archives
	with and without TAR, it cannot tell one from the other, nor does
	it "decode" the filenames, to try to determine this. It simply
	assumes that *any* archive is a GZIPped TAR and gets somewhat
	confused if given a "plain" GZIPed file. End of mystery <g>

> > *not* GZIP. The problem I had with GZIP was that (from memory) :
> > 1. It has a nasty habit of overwriting the source file.
> 
> That is not a nasty habit. GZIP is designed to do this. However, if you
> wish to keep the source file you can give it instructions to do so. I
> never bothered doing that.
> 
	[da Silva, Joe]  

	Well, this is hardly "normal" behaviour for DOS app's and
	IMHO *is* nasty!  :-/

> > 2. It doesn't seem to handle LFN's within archives properly.
> 
> That could be. I neber tried to use it with LFNs in DOS. I do that in
> Linux. But I have all kinds of problems with LHNs period.
> 
> > 3. It's documentation sux.
> 
> This could also be, because it was probably just proted over to DoS from
> Linux with some of the stuff rewritten like using the \ that DOS uses
> instead of the industry startdard / for subdirectories. I don't find
> them to be bad because I used it in Linux and looked at the DOCs for DOS
> too see what can and cannot be done with the DOS version. Usually I just
> use the -h or --help screens for reference and seldom use the manual.
> Much the same as I do with PKZIP. For example you use -9 for the best
> compression with GZIP and use -x with PKZIP. Much of it is just like
> PKZIP and PKZIP probably came from GZIP anyway as far as the commands
> go. I don't use ARJ very much and sometimes I have to refer to it's
> manual to figure out things that I normally do with my eyes closed with
> PKZIP. Probably the recursing of directories is the hardest part to
> understand because PKZIP is very different from all the others I have
> used, except of course PKXARC and PKPAK. I have to always look that up
> when using ARJ, LHARC, GZIP and many others because I am so used to
> using PKZIP.
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com