Gustavo Niemeyer writes: > - Don't have to change path to use compressed packages (at least > not if you want to provide compressed packages, individual > compressed modules or the standard library). >=20 > - Don't have to specify the compression type hardcoded. >=20 > - Allows one to ship a package inside a zip file, without asking > the user to change his path, and without hacking the package. >=20 > - Allows one to compress a single file (foobar.py.bz2). >=20 > I belive that my propose is quite clear now. If there are no > additional supporters, there's no reason to go on. I think this proposal would make sense IF compression were an important goal here. But to me, it isn't. Zip does two things... it aggregates into a single file (maintaining directory structure) and it compresses. Of the two, I find the aggregation important and the compression a mere side effect. This is why I really don't care much about switching to a different compression (or aggregation) format -- one standard way to do it is more useful to me than a BETTER way. It is why I don't care about compressing a single file. Basically, disk space is cheap, but effort to keep track of (and distribute) complex file hierarchies isn't. > Thanks to everyone who discussed. And thanks for your contributions too. I don't realize exactly what I was looking for from .zip until you explained so clearly the benefits of your proposal. -- Michael Chermside
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4