Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: us.kernel.org mirroring inconsistency | Date | Tue, 5 Jan 1999 23:54:36 +0200 (EET) | From | Matti Aarnio <> |
| |
... > So what's wrong with using the GNU version of tar that's supplied with > most of the Linux distributions. I've just tried it out, and the > following command deals with the 2.2.0-pre4 kernel quite happily... > > Q> tar tv --use-compress bzip2 -f l*2.2*4*2 > > As far as I know, that version of tar is included in every version of > Linux there is, as well as being provided with SunSolaris...
That method is about two dozen characters too cumbersome. Way easier is just forget 'z' (and 'f') and do: bunzip2 < your.interesting.tar.bz2 | tar tvv
The question begun as `` Shall the mirrors be required to always carry both GZ and BZ2 files, or shall only one of the forms be standardized into use ? If the latter, which ? ''
If the primary archive chooses to have ONLY BZ2 files, and no GZ, I would have no trouble (I would even like it for space reasons), but given the selection in between two existing sets of files, each complete in themselves, I am conservative and support long established GZ format based on existing easy to use, and familiar (to large number of people) tools.
Doubling the disk-space requirement for the mirror by having two merely differently compressed formats is not something mirror runners like, as both subsets have size exceeding 2 GB, storing both of them into the archive is by no means a trivial thing to do. We do have to choose what to store/mirror, and there a 2G volume is a decission item.
Another issue is that in Finland all major (and minor) ISPs offer flat- rate dialin services rendering the question about download time quite irrelevant in here...
/Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@sonera.fi>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |