LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2001, 04:11 PM   #1
c0c0deuz
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Qc, Canada
Distribution: RedHat, Mandrake, FreeEOS
Posts: 336

Rep: Reputation: 30
.tgz or .tar.gz


Is there a difference between the two?
 
Old 12-13-2001, 04:31 PM   #2
bluecadet
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2001
Distribution: MD81 RH71
Posts: 555

Rep: Reputation: 30
.tgz is the standard package type for slackware I believe. the same as a standard tar.gz but suited to a slack file system, default installation paths etc... same as rpm's and mdk.rpm's for redhat and mandrake respectively
 
Old 12-13-2001, 05:27 PM   #3
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 27,564
Blog Entries: 54

Rep: Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928Reputation: 2928
unfortunately "slackerz" think they 0wn the extension "tgz" but there's literally *no* difference whatsoever between a tarball named with the extension "tgz" or "tar.gz", note an extension doesnt say nuttin (in this case) bout the contents.
 
Old 12-13-2001, 06:28 PM   #4
Aussie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Brisvegas, Antipodes
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,590

Rep: Reputation: 56
A .tgz slack package usually contains a precompiled binary, so it's best to make sure what your downloading is not a slack package...unless your a slacker.
 
Old 12-13-2001, 06:58 PM   #5
taz.devil
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Wa. State
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,261

Rep: Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally posted by unSpawn
unfortunately "slackerz" think they 0wn the extension "tgz" but there's literally *no* difference whatsoever between a tarball named with the extension "tgz" or "tar.gz", note an extension doesnt say nuttin (in this case) bout the contents.
Not all Slackers think that. It just depends on who compressed it and how they wanted to. Of course it's not distro specific to Slack...They just use it as thier preferred method and some get conflustered....
 
Old 12-13-2001, 07:08 PM   #6
tome
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: PA
Distribution: debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Maybe this is too obvious but let me put it up there just in case.

xxx.tar.gz implies that xxx has first been tar-ed and then been run through gzip to compress.

Of course you can add whatever file extensions you want, but assuming they are telling the truth.

xxx.tgz is often created automatically using tar with the --gzip or short form -z flag.

The man page for tar:
-z, --gzip, --ungzip filter the archive through gzip

So it seems to me that a xxx.tgz has been automatically run through gzip, after tarring.

Thus, I don't think there is a difference in the two.
 
Old 12-13-2001, 07:19 PM   #7
finegan
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,700

Rep: Reputation: 57
Okay, I may be gongoroo here, but if I remember right... tar and gzip don't care what the extension is at all, and the tgz extension really only came about so as to keep DOS from going berserk if it saw a file extension with two "."'s in it.

Of course, I can't remember how I came to know this, so I may be channelling a passed away MCSE who just wants to confuse things.

-Cheers,

Finegan
 
Old 12-14-2001, 11:11 AM   #8
isajera
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Distribution: distro? what's a distro?
Posts: 1,635

Rep: Reputation: 45
i think that's right... the .tar.gz thing got compressed to .tgz because of DOS filename restrictions. if a tarred and gziped file needed to pass through a DOS machine, it needed to be .tgz
 
Old 12-14-2001, 11:19 AM   #9
c0c0deuz
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Qc, Canada
Distribution: RedHat, Mandrake, FreeEOS
Posts: 336

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
OK, but is there any difference in the file itself or is it only a difference in the extension chosen.
 
Old 12-14-2001, 11:37 AM   #10
Aussie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Brisvegas, Antipodes
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,590

Rep: Reputation: 56
That depends on the file. It could be just because of the way it was packaged or it could be a slack package. Most of the .tgz packages you see these days are for slackware.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
convert tar.gz into .tgz lostnhell Slackware 5 09-05-2005 03:50 PM
tar.gz to .tgz file? wombat53 Linux - Software 20 06-15-2005 09:31 AM
gave wrong syntax for tar as tar -cvzf file file.tgz how to recover the file gautham Linux - General 4 04-13-2005 04:15 AM
what's up with swaret.tgz.tar darkleaf Slackware 15 02-25-2005 08:25 PM
.rpms, .tar.gz, .tgz, .src.rpm, & .tar.bz2 whoots Mandriva 10 10-18-2003 01:08 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration