[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Adding lzma to dpkg's Pre-Depends



On 02/04/08 at 01:52 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 10:24:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > So of course besides OOo on there we also find the kernel packages.  We
> > > wouldn't have to use lzma for the kernels though, if that would raise the
> > > minimum memory requirements for servers, or lzma could be selectively
> > > enabled on a per-flavor or per-arch basis as appropriate.
> 
> > The results are a bit misleading, because they compare the absolute
> > gain.
> 
> No, why would that be misleading?  You don't want the overhead of lzma
> compression for a 10-fold reduction in the size of a package that's already
> in the bottom 5% of packages by absolute size.

The overhead (time and memory to compress/uncompress) is likely to be a
function of the data size. I'm just saying that it's not that simple.
For example, in the case of OOo, you save 27% of the size, but multiply
by 4 the time to compress.

If instead, you use lzma for ttf-arabeyes, smbclient,
gnome-system-monitor, tomboy, gdb, and language-pack-gnome-en-base, you
save the same size (10.5M in that case, 10.2M in openoffice's case), but
you only compress/decompress 43M of uncompressed data in this case,
while you touch 112M in the OO case. So it's likely that the overhead is
more important in the OO case.

I'm just saying that, if we don't use lzma for all packages, it's not
straightforward to decide for which packages to use it. It's probably a
function of absolute saving, saving ratio, popcon, etc.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


Reply to: