Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
> > > > Speed reasons - gzip is significantly faster than bzip2, which matters
> > > > for old ix86 (x=3,4) and m68k machines which run Debian.
> > >
> > > bzip2 also uses more memory which can be an issue with lowmemory
> > > systems.
> > I had a 486 with 8Mb and with `bzip2 -s' I could use bzipped packages
> > perfectly... are we talking about 4 Mb mechines?
> Do you realize how much ram dpkg itself already takes up? Add that to
> bzip2 and you are definitely swapping, even with 8 megs of RAM. Heck,
> doing this, and you need 16megs *free* physical memory just to keep from
> swapping. As for 4 meg machines, the current gzip setup is almost
> unbearable just for that (believe me, I have an 8 meg system, and I don't
> want to even imagine a 4 meg system trying to handle dpkg, much less
Uhm.. you are right. But it could still be used for Packages.gz and for the
source package. Many packages are now being packaged in bz2 upstream (eg.
lftp, one of mine)...
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com