On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:38:56AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > Why not lzma? It reduces size even more > > It's the same question really. "Do we want to move on from gz?" > > I guess bzip2 is more widely known than lzma, that is we're more likely > to directly use upstream's tarballs by adding bzip2 support. Certainly > X.org releases tarballs both gz and bz2 compressed. > > But the question could be made more general. Why do we explicitly > enforce gz compression at the moment, why couldn't we support *any* > compression scheme that upstream developer or Debian maintainer might > care to use? (perhaps the CPU arguments answer this sufficiently, > though I'm not convinced by them myself).
I think binaries are more important, since they're unpacked an order of magnitude more times than source. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
