On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 21:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > 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. >
Ooh, you're referring to the compression used in the .deb package itself here, aren't you? I wasn't thinking about that, but in terms of reducing archive space it makes sense to consider that as well. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
