Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
> > > > 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)...
> For Sources and Packages that's fine, IMO, but your assertion about
> source packages is a little misleading. apt-get source for gcc and
> glibc. Check the tarballs internally. You'll notice they are .tar.bz2.
> This is done with little loss of space over straight .bz2. A new format
> and hacking is not needed for you to use this already (packages doing this
> need to Build-Depend on bzip2).
That kind of packaging is a hack, and a very user unfriendly one. I'd like
to have native bzip support, to have a lftp.orig.bz2.
> : Also check openldap, shadow and pam for the same style setups. Yes,
> it's sort of a hack, but it's a clean hack and the system provides much
> more than a way to package up .bz2 tarballs.
I'll avoid that hack as much as I can... =)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org