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. -- ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
