Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 04:51:53PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
> Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Sergey I. Golod (rover@tobolsk.net.ru):
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
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.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: