Fabian Groffen wrote:
I think what you're really measuring here is bzip2 vs lzma compression.
Gentoo's xpak can be done with lzma or gzip as well IMO. It's not
really an argument, but more like I think you should focus your decision
on the metadata part. Things like how easy it can be extracted
(with/without compression tools?), transparency, etc.
My 0.02 ${currency}.
I think what you're really measuring here is bzip2 vs lzma compression.
Gentoo's xpak can be done with lzma or gzip as well IMO. It's not
really an argument, but more like I think you should focus your decision
on the metadata part. Things like how easy it can be extracted
(with/without compression tools?), transparency, etc.
My 0.02 ${currency}.
really wanted to play unfair I'd toss deb or some rpm variant in there..
(In fairness suse which uses lzma may not do too badly?)
However.. both these formats are directly extractable and at a
functional level quite similar.
In terms of accessing the metadata
xar --dump-toc=foo.xml -f /usr/portage/packages/app-editors/vim-7.2.021.oxe
From there it almost becomes semantics since parsing the very small
amount of metadata is trivial. In this case I prefer a tool with
built-in support that I can checksum instead of just tagging xpak on the
end. Both have advantages depending how you look at it.
./C
