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
> dpkg+bzip2).
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 debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: