On 1/14/02 11:50 AM, "Erik BéČfors" <erik / bagfors.nu> wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 17:17, Massimiliano Mirra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 12:08:58PM +0900, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>>> On Macs, gnutar will be their if the user installed the optional
>>> Developer Tools. It a pretty safe bet that she did in order to build
>>> ruby in the first place.
>> 
>> Good, this leaves a door open.
> 
> No,  Hopefully there will be binary packages for the average-user to
> install.  They might not have tar.

I guess I wasn't very clear. The 'average' Mac user will have BSD tar. The
ones who installed the Developer Tools from the grey disk will *also* have
gnutar. The only Mac folks who won't have any version of tar will be those
who reformatted their disks and reinstalled their OS, in the process
choosing the option to not install the 'BSD subsystem' and those  who did:
'sudo rm /usr/bin/tar'

[snip]

> Also.  Using this format will work with ALL tar's (at least that I've
> seen)
> 
> gzip -dc filename.tar.gz | tar xf -
> 
> That will work with a tar that doesn't take the z-flag.  And there is
> alot of them.

This works on the Mac

>> To summarize, the chances for tar as compression tool for packets are:
>> 
>> - Linux: will work everywhere.
>> 
>> - BSD: idem.
>> 
>> - Other Unices: idem, I guess.
> 
> Not at all.
> lots of unices does
> 1) Not include a gnutar (but that's solvable as shown above)
> 2) Not include a gzip but only the old compress/uncompress programs.
> 
> If there is a way for gzip to create "compress"-archive (.Z normaly)
> than we could use that for unix-compability because gzip will unpack .Z
> without problem. I don't know if it can create them though.
> 
> The only problem is that compress sucks.
> 
>> - Mac/Mac OS X: idem, as it is needed to install Ruby.
> 
> Again.. no

>> - Windows: winzip could maybe do it.
> 
> Winzip costs money.  Don't expect everyone to have it.  I don't.
> 
>> - Hand helds: don't know.  Probably only those running Linux (iPAQ?).
> 
> My ipaq has both tar and gzip but don't count on it.
> 
>> Anyway, I'm somewhat biased for an all-Ruby solution, but a
>> compression *format* (no matter its speed or ratio) is still something
>> that must be chosen carefully.
> 
> I also believe in a all-Ruby solution.  I believe in using a
> ruby/zlib-module and then coding something in it.  That would ofcourse
> require everyone to install ruby/zlib but that's a one-time-thing.  I
> feels more natural to install a library than to install binaries that
> you might need to have in your path.

Works for me.
-- 
Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers.
-Mignon McLaughlin, author