Re: Use bz2 not gz for orig.tar ?
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 21:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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.
Ooh, you're referring to the compression used in the .deb package itself
here, aren't you? I wasn't thinking about that, but in terms of
reducing archive space it makes sense to consider that as well.