Re: Status of deb(5) format support in Debian
On 1 August 2013 16:21, Adam Borowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 03:52:38PM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2013 15:40, Adam Borowski <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:24:32PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> >> [...] in preparation to add non-gzip compression support for control.tar
>> > May I ask why would you want that?
>> > There's a lot of extra complexity, incompatibility with existing tools,
>> > added moving parts... and I'm not aware of any gain.
>> > xz, while vastly superior to gzip and bzip2 for bulk data, suffers from
>> > slow start: for files a few tens of kilobytes or smaller, xz compresses
>> > worse than gzip. Thus, control.tar.xz is hardly ever a good idea.
>> > On the other hand, control files compress pretty well, so you want _some_
>> > form of compression. For files this small, CPU costs are totally
>> > negligible.
>> > Thus, with .tar.gz being either the best or very close to the best,
>> > what would be the point of this change?
>> For debian-installer (et. al. components) at the moment control.tar.gz
>> is often larger than data.tar.xz since "templates" are very long and
>> include a lot of translations.
> Hmm... indeed, some udebs have monstrous control tarballs, the biggest one
> being 1167360 bytes long (uncompressed).
>> So for that package group it's valuable to have control.tar.xz.
> Still, total gains for all udebs (jessie netinst amd64) are only 1.22MB.
> Should I try this for regular debs?
libc6 compressed control.tar.gz is 66kB
It has uncompressed 111kB symbols, 68.5kB templates.....