Re: Use bz2 not gz for orig.tar ?
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:07:57PM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> Qui, 2007-04-12 às 21:03 +0200, Robert Millan escreveu:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:38:56AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > > > Why not lzma? It reduces size even more
> > >
> > > It's the same question really. "Do we want to move on from gz?"
> > >
> > > I guess bzip2 is more widely known than lzma, that is we're more likely
> > > to directly use upstream's tarballs by adding bzip2 support. Certainly
> > > X.org releases tarballs both gz and bz2 compressed.
> > >
> > > But the question could be made more general. Why do we explicitly
> > > enforce gz compression at the moment, why couldn't we support *any*
> > > compression scheme that upstream developer or Debian maintainer might
> > > care to use? (perhaps the CPU arguments answer this sufficiently,
> > > though I'm not convinced by them myself).
> > I think binaries are more important, since they're unpacked an order of
> > magnitude more times than source.
> agreed ... faster in binaries, better in source.
I didn't really mean that (although it was poorly expressed). I mean that
we should be more concerned about binaries than about source.
I think compression ratio is better than speed in most cases. With better
compressed packages we save archive space, users save a lot of bandwidth, and
the first CD/DVD can hold more stuff. That's important too.
My spam trap is email@example.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.