On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 05:21:01PM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 1 August 2013 16:21, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > > 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? > > > > libc6 compressed control.tar.gz is 66kB > > It has uncompressed 111kB symbols, 68.5kB templates.....
Aaaand the winner is: ns3-doc tar: 10199040 gz: 2306528 xz: 1945456 Looks like I underestimated packages with massive control files. On the other hand, the total gain for all regular debs in the archive is just 14MB (out of 58GB amd64 unstable main+contrib+non-free). I'd still say it's not worth having to modify every tool, but it's up to you to decide. In any case, here's the raw data: http://angband.pl/tmp/deb-control.sql http://angband.pl/tmp/udeb-control.sql -- 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/20130801215114.ga6...@angband.pl
