[Sugar-devel] Bundle format
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > (oh, and the .zip file already has a checksum, it's not clear why > you'd need another one.) Ah, cool... but I guess it's not a cryptographically secure one, right? Plus, I was thinking... shouldn't we support a bundle format with better compression than zip? My favorite pick would be tar + xz, but if we want to retain the file-by-file accessibility of zip, 7z would also work well. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundle format
On 23.11.2010, at 05:07, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >> (oh, and the .zip file already has a checksum, it's not clear why >> you'd need another one.) > > Ah, cool... but I guess it's not a cryptographically secure one, right? > > Plus, I was thinking... shouldn't we support a bundle format with better > compression than zip? My favorite pick would be tar + xz, but if we want > to retain the file-by-file accessibility of zip, 7z would also work > well. IMHO the gains to be had from a slightly smaller download do not outweigh the ubiquity of the zip format. No other archive format is as widely supported. It can easily be examined and created on any platform. - Bert - ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundle format
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > On 23.11.2010, at 05:07, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > >> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >>> (oh, and the .zip file already has a checksum, it's not clear why >>> you'd need another one.) >> >> Ah, cool... but I guess it's not a cryptographically secure one, right? >> >> Plus, I was thinking... shouldn't we support a bundle format with better >> compression than zip? My favorite pick would be tar + xz, but if we want >> to retain the file-by-file accessibility of zip, 7z would also work >> well. > > IMHO the gains to be had from a slightly smaller download do not outweigh the > ubiquity of the zip format. No other archive format is as widely supported. > It can easily be examined and created on any platform. +1 > > - Bert - > > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundle format
On 11/23/2010 01:47 PM, Walter Bender wrote: On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote: On 23.11.2010, at 05:07, Bernie Innocenti wrote: On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: (oh, and the .zip file already has a checksum, it's not clear why you'd need another one.) Ah, cool... but I guess it's not a cryptographically secure one, right? Plus, I was thinking... shouldn't we support a bundle format with better compression than zip? My favorite pick would be tar + xz, but if we want to retain the file-by-file accessibility of zip, 7z would also work well. IMHO the gains to be had from a slightly smaller download do not outweigh the ubiquity of the zip format. No other archive format is as widely supported. It can easily be examined and created on any platform. +1 Yes, keeping the zip format sounds desired to me as well. Widely supported, the same that other projects like open office use for archiving, too. Regards, Simon ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundle format
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >> (oh, and the .zip file already has a checksum, it's not clear why >> you'd need another one.) > > Ah, cool... but I guess it's not a cryptographically secure one, right? Cryptographic security can be added to a manifest in the same way it is done for jar files, for android zip files, and for any number of other zip-based archives. In fact, it should be done *exactly* as in one of those other formats. I believe I suggested 'jar'. Use the existing tools, Luke. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Bundle format
On 30.11.2010, at 01:01, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >>> (oh, and the .zip file already has a checksum, it's not clear why >>> you'd need another one.) >> >> Ah, cool... but I guess it's not a cryptographically secure one, right? > > Cryptographic security can be added to a manifest in the same way it > is done for jar files, for android zip files, and for any number of > other zip-based archives. In fact, it should be done *exactly* as in > one of those other formats. I believe I suggested 'jar'. Use the > existing tools, Luke. > --scott +1 - Bert - ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
