Miles Bader wrote:
* Are there any real advantages to "baz format" archives?
There is no really big difference. The main one is that instead of having c/c--b/c--b--v/, you have only c--b--v/ in the directory structure, which reduces the probability to hid the max filename length (this is indeed a keypoint if your archive is hosted on a windows server, while you probably don't mind if your archive is on a unix server).
There's another subtle detail that I don't remember exactly about a file which was supposed to be here in tla's archive and which was not actually there.
* Are there any problems with such archives in current/slightly-old versions of tla?
It has been in tla for quite some time now (IIRC, more than a year).
* Must a mirror have the same archive format as the source archive? If I had a baz-format internal archive, could I mirror it to a classic-tla-format mirror? [The reason I ask all this, is that I'm about to create a new archive, and I noticed the "--baz" option to tla make-archive...]
Indeed, when Tom introduced the baz archive format, he made it the default without noticing. I believe this is still the case.
Regarding speed, the baz archive format _could_ make some operations like browsing faster (you have one directory listing to do instead of a recursive one to do a full browse). But the code doesn't exploits this AFAIK. And the content of version is still the same, only their layout changed.
So, globally, the differences are minor, I suppose you just don't mind ... -- Matthieu _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
