Zip Vs Tar

[daveman]

Alberto, can you please release things as .zip alongside of .tar. I am guessing it will fix the issue I have with blank pages. Also many more people have WinZip instead of WinRar.

[bear]

I know this doesn't help the issue, but have a look at this utility:
Power Archiver (http://www.powerarchiver.com)
Handles Zip, tar, tar.gz, b2z, cab and loads more. Pretty terrific.

[Alberto]

Will do.

[AceWeb]

Just a commnet, in the offical product there has to be a working way for sure.

i.e 2 released will confise clients. For us testers, it is ok thou.

[bitziz]

I personally perfer tar since I can just get it right on my server and do everything there...

with tar you can avoid all the permission problems... since it keeps all the permission on files and directories, unlike zip which ignores all those...

Less like you will get ppl complaining they can't get xxx to work and realising after that it's just a permission issue.

[stepan]

I too prefer .tar for the same reason bitziz.

I'm not sure about other control panels, but I'm using cpanel which comes with a web-based file manager that allows me to upload files and to extract them (whether they are .zip, .tar or .tar.gzip). So I can go through an easy install/upgrade process without using SSH or without ever extracting them on my local PC.

Of course, I usually use SSH to wget the file, but it's not neccessary.

[bitziz]

I posted in the other thread that a php or a perl script could download a tar file from a remote host and untar it...

possibility?

[Alberto]

Originally posted by bitziz@Feb 4 2003, 10:09 AM
I posted in the other thread that a php or a perl script could download a tar file from a remote host and untar it...

possibility?
What are the implications of safe mode? Which is my only concern.

[daveman]

Originally posted by bitziz@Feb 4 2003, 05:50 AM
I personally perfer tar since I can just get it right on my server and do everything there...

with tar you can avoid all the permission problems... since it keeps all the permission on files and directories, unlike zip which ignores all those...

Less like you will get ppl complaining they can't get xxx to work and realising after that it's just a permission issue.
But a lot of people will unpack it on their computer and upload it. Very few will do that on the server. You can also get a copy of unzip for your server.

[DavidR]

Originally posted by AceWeb@Feb 4 2003, 01:07 PM
Just a commnet, in the offical product there has to be a working way for sure.

i.e 2 released will confise clients. For us testers, it is ok thou.
If you are saying that releasing the final product in both zip and tar formats would confuse customers, I don't agree. There are a lot of scripts, particularly php, that are released that way. They reflect the two fundamental ways people use to get the scripts on the server. I came from a Windows/IIS environment where tar is for the roof (and tarball? where did these names come from!), so I extract on my local machine and ftp up. It works fine because I am used to it, as I am used to changing the permissions on the files that need them. Others, expecially those from a *nix background and with ssh access will no doubt prefer to do it all on the server and so they need the other.

I think it would be wise to release CE compressed both ways. A simple explanation can be posted but most people will just use whichever they are most familiar with as long as they know that each contains the same thing. Besides, what are the reasons for not doing so? It takes about 3 min to zip up another version :P

David