🚀 go-pugleaf

xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:

|If in fact this works well, it would be nice if someone adapted it
|into a version of shar to pack the pieces of a shar into the fewest,
|say 60Kbyte, articles possible, to save header and archive bytes.
|Diskettes aren't the only place where efficient packing is useful! 

I looked at this a year or so ago and decided the gain wasn't really
worth it.  In shar-ing up a bunch of things that had been recently
posted to comp.sources.* back then, it saved *one* part in fewer
than 5% of the cases.  Mileage varies, of course, but it only helps
if the source just barely goes onto a new part because of bad
packing; all the one parters, or n-parts plus 30k just don't get
helped.  And saving one set of headers/shar headers over the size
of the whole posting just didn't seem worthwhile.

If someone does do this, though, keep in mind that you may want to
force some files, eg. ReadMe, to the front.
-- 
John R. MacMillan       | I wish I had a nickname like Crusher, Snake or Dennis
john@chance.UUCP        | Because guys with nicknames always get the gal.
...!scocan!chance!john  |       -- barenaked ladies