Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:06:34PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
> > David Starner wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:15:10PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
> > > >
> > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
> > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz
> > > >
> > > > It's about 25% can be saved in download.
> > >
> > > Historical reasons - bzip2 is newer than gzip, and didn't exist when the
> > > choice was made.
> > ok. now bzip2 exist - first reason is not applied :-)
> Historical reasons still apply because there is a significant cost in
> changing historical practices.
> > > Standards reasons - gzip is essential: yes on Debian, and is required for dpkg
> > > anyway. bzip2 is still priority optional, and it hasn't gained enough usage
> > > through other channels to be raised to standard.
> > why we can't change this behavior? At least in woody.
> I guess it will be changed, according to Ben Collins. The last comment still
> stands, though - it's not used outside Debian enough to be standard.
> > > Speed reasons - gzip is significantly faster than bzip2, which matters
> > > for old ix86 (x=3,4) and m68k machines which run Debian.
> > But extra size = extra money, that's more worse. On saved money everybody can
> > upgrade they old machines.
Well, I'd like a new laptop then please. The 486 is a little slow with
There are many more users of debian then there are mirrors, so there are
fewer to get extra space than people who would need new mem/cpu. (So
dpkg runs at a remotely decent speed)
btw This is coming from someone who pays per minute for phone bill, so
like big downloads....
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com