Re: Possible abuse of dpkg-deb -z9 for xz compressed binary packages
- To: Thomas Goirand <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Possible abuse of dpkg-deb -z9 for xz compressed binary packages
- From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:46:28 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20141014104628.GA3787@breakpoint.cc>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <CAEe2ifUQd55wfuaMXPNkdgjkX+=JQDEOj=YqdGYGEjqqwrKVBA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <20140902114530.GA11993@angband.pl> <20140902130655.GA4806@bryant.redmars.org> <20140902133929.GB10691@khazad-dum.debian.net> <5423070B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20140924181802.GA16214@khazad-dum.debian.net> <5423BF9C.email@example.com> <20140925100221.GC7478@grep.be> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 2014-09-25 22:23:19 [+0800], Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/25/2014 06:02 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> As wrote by others earlier, that's the amount of memory needed for
> compression. 65 MB of RAM is needed for decompression. That's nothing!!!
just imagine you have one of the recent smaller boxes say beagle board
which have 256MiB of total memory. The required 65MiB is a little more
than a forth of it.
If you argue that this kind of hardware never runs "this" kind of
software so -z9 is sane then the question is when someone hits this
problem and cares to report or works around it.
The thing is whether the bytes we saved here with -z9 vs -6(e) is worth
the problem we might run into.
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)