Re: RFS: fio 2.11
Hi!
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 08:52:47PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:57:41PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > a) Is it worth to switch to xz for this package?
> > b) Is it a good idea to force the compression-level to 9?
> >
> > For a) I think maybe for b) I guess buildd maintainers and maybe even
> > devs of weaker arches might hate you. I've no good idea myself how
> > xz works internally but if I recall the threads on d-d correctly about
> > making xz the default a compression level above 6 was deemed way too much.
> > I think even lower levels were proposed as a Debian default when xz will
> > be the default compression method.
>
> xz is already the default.
>
> I don't think micromanaging the compressor in every package is a good idea,
> especially for a regular package without special needs. Setting it on
> openclipart (big, no gain) or linux-image-dbg (big and highly compressible)
> is worth the effort, using something non-standard on a random package is
> not -- and will bring us extra work if some policy changes.
>
> So let's not muck with compression settings without a good reason.
It seems that Sven has already uploaded the package.
Upstream maintainer Jens Axboe told me that he likely releases a fio 2.12 this week, which has some patches merged I currently carry in the package.
I suggest that I remove the compression setting then and do another RFS.
Would that be okay with you?
Thanks,
--
Martin Steigerwald - teamix GmbH - http://www.teamix.de
gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90
Reply to: