5 ms·
My concern with Pack obliging me to compress is that compression becomes less pluggable; I'd much rather my archive format be agnostic of compression, as with t
by xcdzvyn 3y ago
My concern with Pack obliging me to compress is that compression becomes less pluggable; I'd much rather my archive format be agnostic of compression, as with tar, so that I can trivially move to a better compression format when one inevitably comes to be.
- OttoCoddo 3y agoYou got a point. Although with that that option comes a great cost: We will lose portability, speed and even reliability. Portability: Receiver (or future you) needs to know what you used, and what version even. Speed: If you want to do the archive part first (tar) and then compress (gz), you will get much lower speed (as shown in the note). Reliability: Most people use tar with gz anyway, but if you use it with not so popular algorithm and tools, you will risk having a file that may or may not work into the future. Pack plan is to use the best of time (Zstandard) and if an update is needed in years to come, it will add support for the new algorithm updates. All Pack clients must only write the latest version (and read all previous versions) and that makes sure almost all use the best of their time.