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
bzip2....
There are many more users of debian then there are mirrors, so there are
far
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
don't
like big downloads....
Peter Allen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: