Archiver packages on FreeBSD CD 1
yar at freebsd.org
Fri Dec 19 07:10:41 PST 2003
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
> 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.
More information about the freebsd-ports