Hi Guillem. I have no real opinion on this.
Guillem Jover - 27.04.18, 07:02: […] > In 2016 Paul Wise mentioned the Zstandard compressor on IRC [Z], > and I briefly checked it out as a potential candidate for dpkg > (while also mentioning it to Julian Andres Klode who was considering > adding lz4 support to apt). At the time it looked like it was not > worth it (apt went with lz4), so it got parked. […] > The following is a quick run-down of the items from [F], not all > being important from Debian's perspective, but being for dpkg's: […] > * Format stability: Although it's supposedly frozen now, it has > changed quite often in recent times. AFAIR it was also mentioned at > least in the past that the target was mainly real-time data > streaming, so long-term data storage might not be a priority? Would > need clarification from upstream I guess. > * Memory usage: Seemed equivalent or less to current compressors, but > only as long as equal or less space was desired. > * Space usage: Seemed worse. > * (De)compression speed: Seemed better (compared only to the existing > supported formats) depending on the compression level used. Regarding technical aspects like these, one more data point: BTRFS meanwhile offers zstandard compression support. So I bet BTRFS developers consider it suitable for format stability and long-term data storage. I am still using lzo on my BTRFS filesystems, so I can not tell any practical experiences so far. > (And BTW I do not consider the current support in Ubuntu a deciding > factor in any way, while it could perhaps fragment the .deb ecosystem, > that's something for them to deal with IMO; should really start > adding the vendor to the generated .deb's. :) If zstd compressed deb´s appear in the wild, it may make sense to at least implement decompression support. Thanks, -- Martin
