On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:34:23 -0500, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uis4334q8.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes:
How do I decode a .rar file?
www.rarlab.com
What is your rationale for using an archive format that is not in common use, and for which there is no free decoder?
No rationale. This is the archiver I am using for last ... I do know .. how many years. It's default on all my NT boxes. BTW I believe it *is* in common use. I should've use zip though, sorry.
.zip, .tar.gz, and .tar.bz2 aren't good enough for you?
I like rar way better from both compression (couldn't say about bz2, but then it require 2 step archiving) and convinience standpoints. And I an used to it.
Yes, I realize that I can download and install a trial decoder, but it seems slightly perverse that I should have to do that just so I can analyze your patch.
If I not mistaking you could use it without limitations. In worse case it will give you notice.
AFAICT it stops working after the trial period is over.
You can use http://www.7-zip.org/. Bruno