On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 11:17, D. D. Brierton wrote: > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 16:06, Mariano Draghi wrote: > > Sorry! Mi fault. I meant: > > > > $] tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo > > You're still using the "z" option which means use gzip, not bzip2. There > is no bzip shipped with FC, as far as I know bzip2 replaced bzip long > ago. > > > No, I assume that with the (corrected) above command I create a *bzip* > > (no bzip2) archive. > > There is no bzip in FC. There is gzip and bzip2. > > > > If you want to create a bzip2 tar > > > archive then you need to use the "j" option to tar, not the "z" option, > > > like so: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo". > > > > Yes, I know. And that works. > > To put it more clear: > > tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo --> can be opened with file-roller > > tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo --> CANNOT be opened with file-roller, it > > fails saying that the archive isn't a valid bzip2 archive, which is > > true, I mean, it is a bzip archive, not bzip2. The problem is that > > file-roller is doing a WRONG assumption. > > No file-roller is assuming that the ".bz" suffix means that you used > bzip2, whereas you have used gzip. > > > > It maybe the case that in the past file-roller automagically determined > > > the archive type, but now simply goes by file extension. > > > > Ok, but if that is the case, isn't '.tar.bz' the standard extension for > > bzip archives? > > Yes. And the standard program for decompressing that is bzip2! > > > How am I supposed to name a bzip archive for file-roller > > to make the right guessing? > > But your archive are made with gzip, not bzip2! They should be named > foo.tar.gz! > > Best, Darren > > -- > ===================================================================== > D. D. Brierton darren@xxxxxxxxxxx www.dzr-web.com > Trying is the first step towards failure (Homer Simpson) > ===================================================================== Use tar xvjf foo.bz or bz2 (The '-' is depreciated and no longer needed) -- jludwig <wralphie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
