| 1 |
Hey Patrick, |
| 2 |
I agree, tar.bz2 is the way to go when possible, but I have many |
| 3 |
friends on old bsd-based systems and some old linux boxes I must |
| 4 |
maintain that don't have bzip2 support. Normally if I know a package I |
| 5 |
write is going to need to go on an older system, I'll package it in both |
| 6 |
formats, but there are times when bz2 is just not an option. |
| 7 |
That having been said, it IS an option in 95%+ of the cases I deal |
| 8 |
with, and for being on a cable modem, bzip2 has saved quite a bit of |
| 9 |
time (and money) in the past. |
| 10 |
-Jon |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 13 |
> Hi all, |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more |
| 16 |
> efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others. |
| 19 |
> A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 - |
| 20 |
> roughly 30% more efficient! |
| 21 |
> A comparison run with 7zip gave me 590M files, so bzip2 seems to be |
| 22 |
> quite good. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I don't think repackaging every .tar.gz as .tar.bz2 is a reasonable |
| 25 |
> option (breaks MD5 digests, we lose the fallback download from the |
| 26 |
> homepage), but maybe this motivates people to save bandwidth and migrate |
| 27 |
> their packaging to bzip2. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Happy hacking, |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Patrick |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives