Re: Why does doc packages need to contain gzipped files?
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> * Ron Johnson [Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:34:29 -0500]:
>>
>>> How does that package get from the Debian mirror to your
>>> computer?
>>
>>> 2 ways: - network - mailed CD/DVD
>>
>>> In either case, *size* does matter.
>>
>> No, this is not about network transfer size, only about disk
>> space, because files inside a .deb file are inside a _gzipped_
>> tar file. (Plus, IIRC, a gzipped tar of uncompressed files
>> usually gives a bigger rate than a compressed tar of gzipped
>> files. So there.)
>
> Point taken.
>
> Wasn't there a discussion a month or so ago regarding whether PDF
> files should be gzipped or not?
There was. It ended with no conclusion. Here's my view of the outcome,
from pure recollection without looking anything up:
- gzipping PDF files does save some space; bz2 compression would save
even more. Naturally, compressing files that are internally
uncompressed gives better results.
- among the people that maintain packages with lots of pdf.gz files, no
one seems really opposed to shipping them uncompressed. But also
nobody seemd to be willing to do the first step, especially since
there is no consensus about not compressing them.
So far for the past; at the moment I think that it would be a good
compromise to not compress PDF files in dedicated -doc packages, while
keeping them compressed in mixed packages. This would mean that we
should *not* wait for debhelper to switch, but instead add -X.pdf to
dh_compress in tetex-doc. But this is just my personal opinion, and not
a very fixed one - it still has to be discussed among the Debian TeX
Task Force
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: