From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 07:10:41 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 5609116A4CE for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:10:41 -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 A320543D2D for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:10:36 -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 hBJFAXS9053538 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:10:33 +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 hBJFAXwM053537 for ports@freebsd.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:10:33 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:10:33 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy To: ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031219151032.GA52845@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20031219105400.GA39759@comp.chem.msu.su> <20031219145435.GA31800@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031219145435.GA31800@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i 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 15:10:41 -0000 On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 03:54:36PM +0100, Erik Trulsson 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? > > 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. That's why I started this topic--to collect different opinions. Please note that you didn't state you needed "zoo" or "lzo"; therefore, if other people don't need them either, they can be replaced by something better. That's my point. -- Yar