| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Christoph Junghans <ottxor@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2012/9/26 Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 5 |
>>> <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> Michael Mol schrieb: |
| 7 |
>>>>> A few months ago, I filed bug 423651 to ask that bzip2 on the install |
| 8 |
>>>>> media be replaced with |
| 9 |
>>>>> pbzip2. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> If I understand correctly, pbzip2 depends on bzip2. So what you are |
| 12 |
>>>> asking is that pbzip2 is preferred over bzip2 when both are installed, |
| 13 |
>>>> and that pbzip2 is installed by default? |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> pbzip2 uses libbzip2, which I understand bzip2 to also be a wrapper around. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> libbz2 is built and installed by the app-arch/bzip2 package. Thus, |
| 19 |
>> app-arch/pbzip2 depends on app-arch/bzip2, unless someone rips libbz2 |
| 20 |
>> out into a separate ebuild. |
| 21 |
> That sound like a plan. Maybe bzip2 should become a virtual as busybox |
| 22 |
> also provides an implementation. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This makes sense. And going back to my initial issue, I don't really |
| 25 |
care which implementation gets used on the bootable media, so long as |
| 26 |
it supports scaling to use my CPU cores. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
:wq |
Archives