On 23/05/2019 14.48, Doug Miller wrote:
Hello,
Bernhard: The 'par' package itself still seems advantageous because it can create PAR (or PAR1 if you rather) volumes. These are very fast to create, with the trade off that they consume a considerable amount of disk space. No one is maintaining upstream because it's basically complete at this point, as far as I understand. I suppose another reason is 'because we can' for open source software and there is very little overhead with maintenance of these packages.
Carlos: The 'par2cmdline' package can verify both PAR/PAR2 volumes. Therefore, 'par' would not be needed if you only wished to verify.
Good :-) Well, not only verify, but rebuild a damaged backup. It is not my case, I always used par2; just thinking for people using it in old archives.
Even though the answer is 'yes' to your question, I believe the 'par' package should still remain because one might want to create PAR volumes (for speed of creation/nostalgia/research/etc).
Sure.
There many reasons to choose par2 over par and they are listed in the par2cmdline README if you would like to scan over them:
https://github.com/Parchive/par2cmdline/blob/master/README
As far as maintaining it and keeping it building I am happy to do so (and I have been assigned as maintainer of both in the Archive devel project already). It should be pretty trouble free to maintain for years to come.
(note to myself: have a look and that Archive project ;-) ) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.0 x86_64 at Telcontar)