Talk:Comparison of archive formats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rationale
- ISO 9660 - It is not strictly an archive format, and more commonly referred to as a file system, but it can be used for archiving, and that's why I included it. --Boborok 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] archive FORMAT ???
how can we compare archive format...that's impossible and very limitated why not a larger article including:
- filesystem with compression such as fat,ext2,squashfs,cramfs,cloop,ziofs
- compare the compression algoritm and their implementations(that can difers a lot,for example bzip2 have different implementation that have different results(an example is bzip2 that have several implementation with technical differences such as blocksize but are compatible with the standard implementation))
but first we can present the metods of compressions because some can't be included in a comparison such as hard-links but such thing is obviously a way to save space... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.189.165.28 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC).
- mabe we just need to find a new name to this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00 tux (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC).
- "How can you compare archive formats?" It's not only possible, but this page is an example of how it can be done. Guy Harris 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] File system comparison?
Why is that here, rather than on Comparison of file systems? Guy Harris 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Purpose of this article
Alright, I spent a good two and a half hours trying to begin the process of cleaning this article up. Considering the subsequent reversion, I feel that it is necessary to address the purpose of this article.
First, I feel it is necessary to understand that an archive is a file that contains other files. This explicity includes any formats that fufill at least this purpose, which therefore means formats designed solely for archiving, for archiving and compression, and for software distribution/packaging. As such, I have reverted the article to my changes, omitting the compress-only formats.
I feel, however, that it is pertinent to leave those formats in place, because archive-only formats almost always use one of them. This is restricted, of course, to those formats that function as wrappers (bzip2, gzip, compress, rzip, etc.). A more detailed list of compression algorithms is needed, yes, but it does not mean this page cannot also include a brief mention of related formats—the archive-and-compress formats inherently mention a compression algorithm, anyway!—Kbolino 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. but this also means that such formats look more limited than they are in real life. For example, tar is almost exclusively used together with gzip/bzip2, and these compressions add integrity checking (but the the table says tar has partial integrity checking). --Crashie 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Long filenames
We need very detailed information about how each archive format handles long filenames. Since these formats are used to transfer files, perhaps between very different OSes, what happens to the names? What if the name is not valid in the receiving system? What about FAT LFNs, which is really a dual-name system? Is only the LFN stored in the archive, the 8.3 is not stored? Then the 8.3 is regenerated by a receiving FAT, and thus may change? What if the archive is made on a Linux OS with native long name support, and there are two files that differ only in case, and the archive is received in a FAT LFN system that does not allow duplicate filename that differ only in case? 69.87.203.23 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
