Re: Use bz2 not gz for orig.tar ?
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.
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
Reply to: