Re: Suggestion to and how to alow different compression for .debs
Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > Whats complicated about using uncompress.sh instead of gzip and
> > fallback to gzip if not present?
>
> Tons of things. What about programs called in uncompress.sh -- are
> dependancies supposed to be fullfilled then? What happens when the script
> fails? What if you don't trust debian, but want to unpack a debian package
> anyway, without running any scripts from it?
>
> What about speed?
It takes 2 hours to download X sources, 15-30 minutes to bunzip2 them
and 24 Hours to compile the stuff (slink X on an MC68060). Do you
realy think saving 10 minutes by using gzip2 and adding about 30% of
size to the download is faster?
> > The gain would be bzip2 compression
>
> BenC has already implemented this, from what I hear.
What about rar or mathematical/fractal compressors? For some data far
better compression can be gained with a specialised packer.
I realy like the support for bzip2 and I´m all for it. I just want to
mention that maybe a more general approach could be made without a lot
of effort. Otherwise in 2 years the same discussion and problems will
arrise when someone wants to use a new packer thats better than bzip2.
And if we are about to change the rules, why not make it the full way.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Reply to: