[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: tar and decompression (Re: [BusyBox] My brain hurts again.)
From:       Rob Landley <rob () landley ! net>
Date:       2004-06-30 21:08:14
Message-ID: 200406301608.14074.rob () landley ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 30 June 2004 10:17, tom@ceisystems.com wrote:
> I think I'm dumb...or working WAY too hard on the weekends. Am I correct
> in saying that the decision is to either pipe to
> gunzip/bunzip2/gzip/bzip2, then read the output through TAR...or is the
> conversation deeper than that? If I am correct, I'd go with piping
> around because the compression utils are used in other functions than
> TAR'ing things up. For instance, rotating logs, compressing modules,
> etc.

Right now, tar calls the decompression library functions itself when 
decompressing, but pipes through a forked instance of gzip or bzip2 when 
compressing.  I want to make it pipe through a forked instance both ways.  
(This doesn't even require gzip or bzip2 to be in the $PATH if I use 
run_applet_by_name() and it's build in to busybox.)

The downside of this is if _all_ you want is tar that understands gzip and 
bzip2, and don't want gzip or bzip2 themselves, it's possible to make a 
slightly smaller version without the extra command line parsing code.  But 
it's also possible that ditching the library glue code will make up for some 
of this, and definitely the case that it'll be smaller if you do what gzip 
and/or bzip2...

At the moment, though, I'm having an attack of real life...

Rob
-- 
www.linucon.org: Linux Expo and Science Fiction Convention
October 8-10, 2004 in Austin Texas.  (I'm the con chair.)

_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@mail.busybox.net
http://codepoet.org/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]