From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 20 13:04:08 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 9D24616A5C6 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from rdsnet.ro (smtp.rdsnet.ro [62.231.74.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D2F43D3F for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:03:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from itetcu@apropo.ro) Received: (qmail 24947 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2003 21:01:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro) (81.196.25.19) by mail.rdsnet.ro with SMTP; 20 Dec 2003 21:01:42 -0000 Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:02:41 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20031220230241.65e83029.itetcu@apropo.ro> In-Reply-To: <20031219145435.GA31800@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <20031219105400.GA39759@comp.chem.msu.su> <20031219145435.GA31800@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:04:08 -0000 On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:54:36 +0100 Erik Trulsson wrote: > 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. If you interact with the win world unzip and unrar are needed; perhaps unace to. my2c -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user