Roger Leigh dixit:
>Possibly a stupid question here but: Given that we are now autosigning
>builds, why can't the slower arches use gzip, and then after upload
>they could be recompressed with xz (and resigned) on a faster arch?
xz -2 is fast enough on m68k (IIRC, compresses not worse than bzip2
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > I concur and I'll be happy to approve such usage of Debian money.
> > FWIW, what is needed to make this kind of things happen is not
> > really money. What is missing is rather a bit of coordination of
> > people that: 1) keep track of what hardware
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:51:02AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > What is missing is rather a bit of coordination of people that:
> [..]
> > Any taker?
>
> Well, according to [1] and [2], we have some hardware donations
> coordinators, and at [3] we have a list of needed hardware.
>
Hi!
Am 21.08.2011 18:59, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
[ more powerful hardware needed ]
> What is missing is rather a bit of coordination of people that:
[..]
> Any taker?
Well, according to [1] and [2], we have some hardware donations
coordinators, and at [3] we have a list of needed hardware.
Hi,
On Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 20:45:18 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will wast
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 08:45:18PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> > Wouldn't it be better to get more buildds for those archs, then?
>> > That would be a totally appropriate use of Debian money...
>>
>> Speaking of which. It would also tot
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 08:45:18PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to get more buildds for those archs, then?
> > That would be a totally appropriate use of Debian money...
>
> Speaking of which. It would also totally be an appropriate use of Debian
> money to get new porter bo
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more
> > >> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures.
Hi,
I'm happy to hear xz support. Some font packages can get huge profit with
this (e.g. fonts-vlgothic: 4924KB -> 2132KB (half! :)
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:52:46 + (UTC)
Philipp Kern wrote:
> It takes a lot longer to compress on slower architectures (i.e. on the
> buildds), though.
If t
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:25:42AM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> What about zless & Co.? Are they available for xz as well?
xz-utils contains xzless, xzcat etc.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi there!
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:16:55 +0200, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Also, many files in /usr/share/doc are gzipped as per §12.3;
[...]
> - Most systems have enough space to keep them uncompressed,
Which alone is not a good reason to not compress them.
> Perhaps we could consider allowing xz c
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:38:28AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Adam Borowski
>
> | Does someone have an estimate how many core-hours would an archive rebuild
> | on such a machine take? Folks on IRC quoted numbers like "340", "240 on a
> | very fast box", "more like 1500" -- too div
Hi,
2011/8/15 Eduard Bloch :
> #include
> * Roger Leigh [Sun, Aug 14 2011, 11:01:11PM]:
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
>> > Wouldn't it be better to get more buildds for those archs, then?
>> > That would be
Le Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:48:50AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
>
> * A year ago, I repacked CD1, .xz took 66% space needed by .gz. This time,
> on the whole archive, gains are somewhat smaller: 72%. I guess that CD1
> is code-heavy while packages of lower priorities tend to have more data
]] Adam Borowski
| Does someone have an estimate how many core-hours would an archive rebuild
| on such a machine take? Folks on IRC quoted numbers like "340", "240 on a
| very fast box", "more like 1500" -- too divergent for my liking. The
| first number, 340, would mean switching to x
#include
* Roger Leigh [Sun, Aug 14 2011, 11:01:11PM]:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to get more buildds for those archs, then?
> > That would be a totally appropriate use of Debian m
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Nope, sorry. I was referring to things like GNOME shipping only .tar.xz.
> I mean they would not take such a decision if getting an xz decompressor
> was a pain on many systems.
There is a large distance between systems on which users are likely to
build gnome from scratch
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:01:11PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Possibly a stupid question here but: Given that we are now autosigning
> builds, why can't the slower arches use gzip, and then after upload
> they could be recompressed with xz (and resigned) on a faster arch?
> This would allow xz com
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more
> > >> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more
> > >> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Of course, it might require finding more buildd maintainers. But I must
> admit that I have no idea what buildd admins spend time on, and how it's
> possible to help them.
"A life in the day of a buildd maintainer" would not be a ba
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more
> > >> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures.
On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more
> >> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures.
> > The gain is especially meaningful for slower architectures, as they
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:50:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Can you quantify that? I don't have hard numbers for the non-Debian
> > systems where people report running debootstrap; perhaps you do ...
>
> Nope, sorry. I was referring to things li
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Since hardcoding gzip for base packages seems to be a bit brittle,
> > we need to work towards allowing xz usage in debian-installer and accept
> > it as a dependency for deboostrap on non-Debian systems (I don't think
> > it's a big issue, xz is portabl
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:19:55PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> As Ansgar mentionned, it creates a new requirement: for debootstrap to work
> xz must be present and it's currently not present in debian-installer.
The main thing I consider to be difficult is that putting xz-compressed
packages i
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Thus, I'd strongly recommend just compressing everything with xz, on all
> architectures. Preferably, as a default in dpkg-dev.
I am very much in favor of this as well but after having discussed this
at debconf with Colin Watson and Joey Hess, I'm
On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more
>> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures.
> The gain is especially meaningful for slower architectures, as they tend to
> have less disk space and slower network links
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:12:36PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The archive software now accepts packages using xz for compression in
> addition to gzip and bzip2 for both source and binary packages.
Hurray!
> please only use xz (or bzip2 for that matter) if your
> package really pro
29 matches
Mail list logo
