On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:07:57PM +0100, Luis Matos wrote: > Qui, 2007-04-12 às 21:03 +0200, Robert Millan escreveu: > > 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. > > agreed ... faster in binaries, better in source.
I didn't really mean that (although it was poorly expressed). I mean that we should be more concerned about binaries than about source. I think compression ratio is better than speed in most cases. With better compressed packages we save archive space, users save a lot of bandwidth, and the first CD/DVD can hold more stuff. That's important too. -- 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]
