On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 09:12:33AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le jeudi 12 avril 2007 à 21:15 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit : > > > 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. > > > > You wouldn't say that if you had a Via C3 with 10 Mbit bandwith. > > > Which is by far a minority situation. You are much more likely to end > up with someone on a 384k or 512k DSL (or even slower ISDN link) with an > opteron, xeon, athlon64 or the like. I'm not saying that your situation > is not possible, simply that trading size for compression/decompression > time would benefit far more people than it would "hurt."
You know, make it intelligent enough, and you can have per-arch settings of what compression to use. gzip for arm, lzma for amd64, and source, etc. The dak suite, and dpkg, certainly won't care. It would just work. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
