On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 03:52:38PM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 1 August 2013 15:40, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:24:32PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> [...] in preparation to add non-gzip compression support for control.tar > > > > May I ask why would you want that? > > > > There's a lot of extra complexity, incompatibility with existing tools, > > added moving parts... and I'm not aware of any gain. > > > > xz, while vastly superior to gzip and bzip2 for bulk data, suffers from > > slow start: for files a few tens of kilobytes or smaller, xz compresses > > worse than gzip. Thus, control.tar.xz is hardly ever a good idea. > > > > On the other hand, control files compress pretty well, so you want _some_ > > form of compression. For files this small, CPU costs are totally > > negligible. > > > > Thus, with .tar.gz being either the best or very close to the best, > > what would be the point of this change? > > > > For debian-installer (et. al. components) at the moment control.tar.gz > is often larger than data.tar.xz since "templates" are very long and > include a lot of translations.
Hmm... indeed, some udebs have monstrous control tarballs, the biggest one being 1167360 bytes long (uncompressed). > So for that package group it's valuable to have control.tar.xz. Still, total gains for all udebs (jessie netinst amd64) are only 1.22MB. Should I try this for regular debs? -- ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130801152147.gb1...@angband.pl
