Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Yeah, but I guess it would take about twice the time to unpack. Please
> > > don't do that to my poor 486 :-((
> > But extra size = extra traffic = extra money, that's worse. Unpack no cost at all
> > (except you time, ofcourse).
> > wbr, Serge.
> > p.s. If Debian change default compression to bzip2 in future, we can save about
> > ~20-25% in size of distribution. It especially important to reduce network
> > traffic in update&upgrade operations.
> Now, we cannot save that much. Your example of compressing pure text is
> not a measure of this whole archive. I've tested it, and converted an
> entire local binary-sparc/main tree to internal bzip2 compression. It
> saved a grand total of 197 megs from 1.5gigs. Roughly 15% at a quick
> guess. This wouldn't even drop us down a single CD.
Yes, binaries. But you also forgot about sources. Or 15% - include binary&source?
> We have new things in the upcoming dpkg, one of those being to support
> bzip2 in the package format. However, I don't see it being used in
> Debian's archives right away.
Anyway, sometime Debian-community must start this job.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org