Re: bzip2 compressed files
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:49:43AM +0000, Russell Coker wrote:
> >...but I wouldn't do that *and* remove that .tgz completely, or
> >hhaving all the .debs converted to tbz2.
> I agree, we're not ready for that yet. However we only need bzip2 in the
> base if we have bzip2 compressed .deb packages in the main sections.
> If only xbooks, dictionaries, and bible references are bzip2 compressed
> then most people won't need bzip2.
Yes, but the bible (king james') is in main, and so are RFCs and xbooks.
If you'd want to make a fresh installation of debian from a CD, you'd
need bzip2 to decompress these -=> bzip2 would *have* to be in base or
dselect/dpkg would give 'Error 1' and quit when they encountered such
.debs. And making these packages Depend: on bzip2 is dumb.
If you propose putting these (and some other) large packages in some other
directory in the main archive and them compressing them with bzip2, fine,
but that is something different.
> >BTW if we leave the tgz-inside debs along with tbz2-inside ones, the
> >mirror list would shorten, because it would double (already alarming :)
> >archive size.
> Definately not!
Not all people can afford to give more than 10 GB only for a doubled Debian
> Maybe we should have two copies of the package files and contents files
> as they get downloaded more often.
Certainly. We should submit a wishlist bug against dpkg/dselect to support
these bzip2 compressed files. Even if it had to be a dselect-bzip2 package.
> However I strongly believe that packages such as xbooks should only be
> available with bzip2 compression.
Yes, they are rather huge. Maybe a new section, like the one that was
proposed by people who'd like to upload vast amounts of geographical (and
other kinds of) data.
I'd vote for opening a new directory, ftp.debian.org/debian/data/ or
something like that, with subsections like 'doc', 'geo', 'space' etc.
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/