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
