On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +0000, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote: > > >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more > > >> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures. > > > The gain is especially meaningful for slower architectures, as they tend to > > > have less disk space and slower network links (arm tends to be used in > > > phones). No extra memory is needed -- decompression is not done in parallel > > > with memory-hungry stages of dpkg's work. The decompression, merely 2.5 > > > times slower than with gzip, is a tiny fraction of what dpkg takes. > > > > It takes a lot longer to compress on slower architectures (i.e. on the > > buildds), though. You could've built a whole package in that time. (Resorting > > to your style of argument.) > > Wouldn't it be better to get more buildds for those archs, then? > That would be a totally appropriate use of Debian money... Possibly a stupid question here but: Given that we are now autosigning builds, why can't the slower arches use gzip, and then after upload they could be recompressed with xz (and resigned) on a faster arch? This would allow xz compression on all arches, but not require slow arches to actually do the xz compression themselves. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature