It's been tar.gz for a long time before, I don't see why we can't keep providing it in that format? Download size?
- Stig On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 07:38, Andi Gutmans wrote: > I definitely would go for either .zip or .tar.gz. I think .zip on Windows > is preferable but as .tar.gz is supported by Winzip it's OK too. > I don't think it's right to start educating windows users like Gabor says. > It has nothing to do with bzip2 being hard but with the fact that barely > anyone has it installed under Windows. > > Andi > > At 06:39 08/04/2002 +0100, James Cox wrote: > >if we want to make our lives easier wrt windows users, we should support > >.zip not tar.gz. > > > >+1 for .zip. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Gabor Hojtsy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:46 PM > >To: Sander Roobol; Simone Cortesi > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PHP Documentation > >List > >Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Bug #16476 Updated: unpacking > > > > > > > >> > Anyway, the files unpack just fine on w2k with the right tools > > > >> [tm] (i > > > >> > used cygwin, bunzip2). If it doesn't work for you your tools are > > > >> broken > > > >> > or you don't know how to use them. > > > >> > > > >> Again, as nobody on windows is familiar with bzip2, which is > > > >> perfectly > > > >> normal as nobody else uses it, dont expect users to be familiar with > > > >> it. > > > >> > > > >> i strongly recommend to use .tar.gz again. > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > And a +1 from me... > > > >-1. We need to educate the guys. Bzip2 is not that hard... > > > >Goba
