On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:18:12AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: >BTW, it's not a big issue, For me it's a nuisance because it's more work for the reviewer. >but I find it cleaner when I have to repackage a bzip2 tarball to gzip >to do: > >bunzip2 program.tar.bz2 >gzip program.tar I prefer: bunzip2 -c program-1.2.tar.bz2 | gzip -9 - > program_1.2.orig.tar.gz I run the following commands for pacemaker 0.6.0: bunzip2 -c Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 | gzip -9 - > pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz touch -r Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz ls -l Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 anibal anibal 897202 2008-01-19 18:01 Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 anibal anibal 1173839 2008-01-19 18:01 pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz bzcat Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 | md5sum; zcat pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz | md5sum 571b3c39653b106f06b4fa8735344fa3 - 571b3c39653b106f06b4fa8735344fa3 - >instead of unpackaging it complely and repackaging it again. Thus at >least the MD5 of the tar is maintained. True. >It is not really important anyway, but I like it more, easier to >compare :) It's important for me. :) >Greetings, > Miry Cheers!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature