smaller zip-like format?
davegaramond at icqmail.com
Sat Feb 8 09:25:42 CET 2003
>>Yes, .tar.bz2-ing probably produces the smallest archive nowadays. But I
>>can't extract members without uncompressing the whole compressed stream.
>>Even .tar.gz and .tar.lzo are still too inefficient for my needs.
> If you want to get individual files without decompressing the whole archive,
> then you probably want to create a .tar archive which contains individually
> compressed files. This will have a lower compression ratio than a tar.xx
> file, however.
CMMIW, but I think .tar is stream based itself, so you still need to
scan from the beginning of the archive. If all the files are already
compressed, I prefer .zip anyway since zip is more supported especially
Well, as a last resort, if no other archive format exists, I think I
will use zip but instead of putting in individual files, I'll put in
tar.gz-compressed directories or groups of files. So this is a middle
ground between a single stream (.tar.(gz|bz2)) and individual files as
More information about the Python-list