From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 06:54:42 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 97CEE16A4CE for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.midgard.homeip.net (h201n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4769E43D45 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:54:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ertr1013@student.uu.se) Received: (qmail 31843 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Dec 2003 14:54:36 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:54:36 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Yar Tikhiy Message-ID: <20031219145435.GA31800@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: Yar Tikhiy , ports@freebsd.org References: <20031219105400.GA39759@comp.chem.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031219105400.GA39759@comp.chem.msu.su> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:54:42 -0000 On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:54:00PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Hi folks, > > 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? Which archivers are considered important is quite individual. I think I have needed "unarj" only once or twice over the last couple of years (and that was for some ancient archive), and I have never had any need for "unrar" - I don't think I have ever even seen an archive that needed "unrar" to unpack. On the other hand I use "lha" on a fairly regular basis, so I don't consider that to be a 'fossil'. In other words I would consider "unarj" and "unrar" to be ancient and/or weird archivers, while I would consider "lha" to be a standard archiver just like "unzip". Your experience/opinion is obviously different. The "modern needs" of people can vary quite widely. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se