Re: Pack200 compression of packaged jars
Le 01/05/2013 20:33, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> thanks for checking. I assume that xz or bz2 compression won't help there either?
pack200+xz/lzma is slightly better than pack200+gz, but not much (~3%
for my example with libcommons-jexl2-java). pack200+bzip2 wasn't better
than pack200+gz.
> otoh not having the hashsums is a substantial loss.
Well, even with packed jar files the checksums are still useful to check
the integrity of the package at install time. But the integrity of the
jar files can't be checked after the installation. If this is a critical
point we can find another way to do it, like recording somewhere the
checksums of the generated files.
> no way. Having the interpreter/runtime only available after configure time,
> and not just after unpack time makes the installation of packages more complex
> and does break upgrades in some ways. Just look back at the python-support
> and python-central times when these symlinks were created at configure time.
> Today the only thing which is done for python packages at configure time is to
> byte compile .py files, which is an optimization only. The packages are usable
> without it as well.
How could unpacking rt.jar in the postinst script break the installation
or the upgrade? That seems pretty simple though, I'm not sure to understand.
Emmanuel Bourg
Reply to: