Le ven 21/06/2002 à 13:46, Anthony DeRobertis a écrit : > You have greatly misunderstood the person you are replying to. He > suggested that Packages.bz2 would help (instead of Packages.gz). So, > here are stats from sid, free, i386. Packages.gz file downloaded from > ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/binary-i386/ > > anthony@bohr:pkgz$ ls -l > total 10604 > -rw-r--r-- 1 anthony anthony 7341811 Jun 21 07:42 Packages > -rw-r--r-- 1 anthony anthony 1519174 Jun 21 07:42 Packages.bz2 > -rw-r--r-- 1 anthony anthony 1970466 Jun 20 15:08 Packages.gz > > So, using bzip2 -9 over gzip -9 seems to save a good 23%; quite nice, > actually. 23 % is not very much, I think. Also, you shouldn't forget that bzip2 is very, very slow. Uncompressing the Packages.gz file on a slow machine already takes several seconds, it could approach the minute with bzip2. And it does only gain 23 %... What about a "light" Packages file, containing only the names and versions of the software, and a Packages file for each source package (one of the proposed solutions to the growing Packages.gz problem) ? You could strip the daily download down to about 100k. One really interesting about bzip2, in fact, would be dpkg-source supporting it, as an increasing number of upstream authors use it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature