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

Re: /usr/share/doc/ files and gzip/xz/no compression

On 16/08/11 00:10, Carsten Hey wrote:
> bzip2 has a better compression on average for some filetypes, xz[1] has
> a better compression on average for others:
>                    gzip      bzip2       xz     bzip2+xz[3]
>   text files[2]   94312922  73496587  77783076  73496587
>   other files     16577181  14609893  14275484  14275484
>   sum            110890103  88106480  92058560  87772071
> Among the "other files" are also a lot of text files, if we would
> compress Debian packages instead, xz would win presumably.
> Anyway, I don't think this difference of 4 MiB on a desktop system is
> significant.
> I would prefer to avoid bloating the set of pseudo essential packages
> without a good reason and I think users should be able to decompress all
> files in /u/s/d.  There are plans to let dpkg depend on liblzma2 instead
> of xz and it already depends on libbz2-1.0.  If dpkg's dependency on
> libbz2 is planned to be removed in future, I would prefer to let libbz2
> vanish from the pseudo essential set and use xz also for /u/s/d,
> otherwise I would prefer using bzip2 over xz for /u/s/d.

One advantage of gzip /usr/share/doc is that when served by an
appropriately configured web server .gz files will be transparently
decompressed and displayed by most web browsers. I believe Policy
requires Debian web servers to make /u/s/d available at
http://localhost/doc/. While this obviously isn't an overriding
consideration it is a nice easy way to browse the documentation. Can
same be done for any other compression formats?


Reply to: