From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 22 00:12:44 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B408216A4CE for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp-ext.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.157]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09F843D49 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.3p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hBM8CeS9045864; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:12:40 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.3p3/8.12.3/Submit) id hBM8CcSK045863; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:12:38 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:12:38 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20031222081238.GA44441@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20031219105400.GA39759@comp.chem.msu.su> <20031220154849.GA75289@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031220154849.GA75289@xor.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Archiver packages on FreeBSD CD 1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:12:44 -0000 On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 07:48:50AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:54:00PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > > Today I was surprised to find out that the collection of archiver > > packages on FreeBSD 4.9 installation disk 1 was rather strange: It > > consisted of fossil ones like "zoo" and "lha", and of not-so-widely-used > > items like "lzop." The 600-kilobyte "fileroller" is questionable, > > too, though I suspect it's included because of Gnome. In fact, I > > was looking for "unrar" and failed to find it there. Perhaps I'm > > missing some important point, but I've been sure that packages on > > disk 1 should be _really_ demanded ones. Among archivers, I'd vote > > for "unarj," "unrar," and "unzip" (the latter is the only one already > > supplied.) Is it time to review the disk 1 archiver package > > collection with respect to people's modern needs? > > If you look at the print-cdrom-packages script, you'll see that none > of these packages are listed explicitly for disk 1, which means > they're all pulled in by a dependency. I dreaded secretly that that was the real reason for those packages to appear on disk 1. All right, let it be so. But if there were some spare kilobytes on disk 1, I would not be the only one who wanted to see unarj and unrar there, too. They aren't large at all, and you know, having a particular archiver handy often is like possessing the right key to the door into the magic garden :-) -- Yar