3 ms·
That got me thinking, are there any efforts to replace tar? A single unified directory structure does seem like a desirable feature, I'm sure it'd be possible t
by C4K3 9y ago
That got me thinking, are there any efforts to replace tar? A single unified directory structure does seem like a desirable feature, I'm sure it'd be possible to find other improvements to make in tar. I wonder if anybody is working on a neotar?
- ghettoimp 9y agoWould that be different than ZIP then?
- pyre 9y agoBut then you can't replace "tar.bz2" or "tar.gz" with "<something else>.gz" since ZIP does both container and compression.
- umanwizard 9y agoSure you can. Nothing prevents you from zipping something with compression turned off and then running bz2 on the result.
- mschaef 9y agoThe difference between a 'neotar' effort and a 'neovim' effort is that for 'neotar', you'd have to be using it also for me to send you a neotar file. It may seem like a small thing, but this is a major impediment to the adoption of new formats. (Corollary is that neotar would have to offer major improvements to get people to buy in.) > A single unified directory structure does seem like a desirable feature, It can make it more difficult to incrementally stream out an archive, so it's not a complete win.
- nerdponx 9y agoIt looks like several have tried, including the Library of Congress: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_archive_formats https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_archive_format...