| 1 |
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 13:54 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sonntag, 27. Januar 2008, Justin wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Thats a good point. Now it worked really fast. |
| 4 |
> > But then the questions is why should I use pbzip2 for decompression with |
| 5 |
> > portage? I think most tarballs are packed only with the normal |
| 6 |
> > compression algorithm! |
| 7 |
> > The WIKI articel pretends a gain of speed which wont be! |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> and that is why you should never trust wiki-articles. Everybody can write them |
| 10 |
> and say whatever they want. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Well, many eyes see much. It's all a matter of checking, just as with |
| 13 |
open source software... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
To the topic: |
| 16 |
I've unmerged pbzip2 after reading its docs. ... seemed too much |
| 17 |
trouble. I'll try it again when it is suitable as a drop-in replacement |
| 18 |
or when portage can make use of it. In the mean time, if I need good |
| 19 |
compression with more than one thread, I use p7zip's lzma |
| 20 |
implementation. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
By the way, as soon as I come into contact with some decent scripting |
| 23 |
languages (and no longer this closed source LabVIEW I currently have to |
| 24 |
work with), I'll try to build a wrapper around p7zip to create a drop-in |
| 25 |
replacement for gzip, bzip2 and zip. |
Archives