Hello,
I have a server archive created with tar and bzip2 (via -j tar option) on
OpenBSD 5.3 GENERIC#50 i386
Now, I'm trying to extract it on a new machine, but I'm getting error:
cd /server
doas tar xjf /path/whole_server_archive-20151101.tar.bz2
bzip2: I/O or other error, bailing out
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
[re Has anyone looked at zopfli]
If we did add it, it would only benefit the fast architectures, since
the others cannot afford the additional build time. Developers would
use up the space gains quickly. Right now a
If it covers that tar needs for tar xjf bla.tbz2 to work then this would
be a good addition.
2013/6/6 Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com
Something that comes up from time to time is the question of whether
to import bzip2 into base or not. Turns out the question is moot
because already have
On 2013/06/06 08:04, Janne Johansson wrote:
If it covers that tar needs for tar xjf bla.tbz2 to work then this would
be a good addition.
That needs support for -d (and -c but we have that already).
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:59:39 -0400
From: Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com
Something that comes up from time to time is the question of whether
to import bzip2 into base or not. Turns out the question is moot
because already have imported it. There's a copy in perl. (I didn't
know
we want to use something
that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
simply use the standard bzip2 code.
Seconded.
ciao,
David
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, David Coppa wrote:
But even more so than with nl(1), why would we want to use something
that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
simply use the standard bzip2 code
? If we want bzip2 in
base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
simply use the standard bzip2 code.
I don't have a problem with importing bzip2, per se. But iirc previous
discussions basically ended with it adds more code and will slow down
builds. But we've already been
? If we want bzip2 in
base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
simply use the standard bzip2 code.
I don't have a problem with importing bzip2, per se. But iirc previous
discussions basically ended with it adds more code and will slow down
builds.
If I recall, previous
Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
It is primarily used by ports.
Before t2k13, there were 739 .tar.bz2|.tbz2 distfiles--compared to
268 .tar.xz|.txz ones. I don't know how fast that balance is
shifting.
There are some 40 ports that directly depend on libbz2, and some
10 more that
with nl(1), why would we want to use something
that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in
base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should
simply use the standard bzip2 code.
I don't have a problem with importing bzip2, per se. But iirc previous
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
[...]
If anyone thinks using this for the install or boot media is going to
help, don't say a word until you can prove it on all platforms.
Has anyone looked at zopfli[1] for the install media? It's a (apache
2
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
wrote:
[...]
If anyone thinks using this for the install or boot media is going to
help, don't say a word until you can prove it on all platforms.
Has anyone looked at zopfli[1] for the install media? It's a (apache
Something that comes up from time to time is the question of whether
to import bzip2 into base or not. Turns out the question is moot
because already have imported it. There's a copy in perl. (I didn't
know this until I happened to be watching a build closer than usual.)
Since we already have
14 matches
Mail list logo
