Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch-log sizes

[Thomas Zander]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> This reminds me of a question that I've been meaning to ask for some
> time. Is there a strong reason why it makes sense for arch to store
> files in compressed tars as opposed to storing compressed files in
> uncompressed tars? Specifically, the difference between a .tgz
> containing many .txt files vs a .tar containg many .txt.gz files.
> (Extensions used just to illustrate the fundamental nature of the files
> in question). Presumably compression ratios would be somewhat less, but
> accessing a limited subset of the files in the tar would be *much*
> cheaper.
>
> Any thoughts? What am I missing?

Did you research this; since research on my part (actually by the 
OpenOffice group) showed that this is not cheaper at all..

- -- 
Thomas Zander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/4LIoCojCW6H2z/QRAm7eAJ45hLKeWxaS7xjySp3ZI+0S9bd5DwCff5KS
tnNuL6jk8qVgJOuZuDz4FRA=
=BXqu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----