Holger Levsen <[email protected]> writes: > control: affects -1 cdebootstrap > control: affects -1 mmdebstrap > thanks > > On Sat, Jan 03, 2026 at 07:45:35PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> What do you think about support for zstd compression of Packages files? > > if debootstrap gains support for this, cdebootstrap and mmdebstrap should get > it as well...
That makes sense, although I don't fully understand the relationship between these three implementations. It seems mmdebstrap already supports zst. There are references to zst throughout the mmdebstrap code, and it claims to rely on apt which supports Package.zst in archives fine. Lack of zst support in debootstrap was the reason that I (reluctantly -- the speed/size tradeoffs are real) switched from zst to gz (which has properties closer to zst than xz) for one of my archives. I could see if replacing debootstrap with mmdebstrap would solve this for me. Using both zst and gz was worse than just supporting gz for me. As for cdebootstrap, it seems to lag behind on implementing new features, which is fine, but I had a look at the code now. Implementing zst support should be straight forward and can/should be done eventually if debootstrap adds this, and I hope to suggest a patch eventually. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
