Re: bzip2 in src tree

John LoVerso wrote: > > Again, lemmie get on my soap box, and ask have you looked at the man page, > > and compared the memory required when using -s to the memory required by > > gzip? > > Actually, lemmie get on my soap box and ask have you measured the time that > bunzip2 takes to run? While

Re: bzip2 in src tree

> Again, lemmie get on my soap box, and ask have you looked at the man page, > and compared the memory required when using -s to the memory required by > gzip? Actually, lemmie get on my soap box and ask have you measured the time that bunzip2 takes to run? While it does give better compression

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Addbzi

< said: >I'm curious as to how a choice like this gets made. Could you elaborate? Other people have answered with the why but not the how. Choices (like this one about archive formats) get made when people sit down and actually do the work to improve FreeBSD. People with commit bits are gener

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

< said: > Am I the only one that uses UNIX as a multitasking OS? > nice the bzip2 process by 20 and background it. Geez. Perhaps you're the only one who compresses files just for the hell of it. Most people normally compress files to meet an immediate need, and actually care how long it takes

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Addbzi

At 4:16 PM -0500 2000/1/24, John Baldwin wrote: > Since zip integrates the > compression and archiving in one file format, you can look in the zip header, > find the file you want, and then extract and uncompress just its data. This > func

Re: bzip2 in src tree

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Ben Rosengart wrote: > And the time and disk space required to make world. No thank you. > Remember that the only win here is if bzip is used in an infrastructural > capacity (e.g. for packages and other install stuff), and it has been > pointed out that the savings on disk

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzi

On 24-Jan-00 Brad Knowles wrote: > At 2:01 PM -0500 2000/1/24, John Baldwin wrote: > >> The new install system is probably going to use zip rather than bzip2. > > I'm curious as to how a choice like this gets made. Could you > elaborate? I did not make the choice personally, I believe

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzi

> At 2:01 PM -0500 2000/1/24, John Baldwin wrote: > > > The new install system is probably going to use zip rather than bzip2. > > I'm curious as to how a choice like this gets made. Could you elaborate? Zip was selected because it's one of the few compressed bundle formats that allows

Re: bzip2 in src tree

At 1:17 PM -0500 2000/1/24, Ben Rosengart wrote: > And the time and disk space required to make world. No thank you. What is the time & disk space requirements without bzip2? I recall multiple hours to do this, and hundreds of MB, but then maybe I'm mis-remembering things.

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Addbzi

At 2:01 PM -0500 2000/1/24, John Baldwin wrote: > The new install system is probably going to use zip rather than bzip2. I'm curious as to how a choice like this gets made. Could you elaborate? -- These are my opinions and should not be taken as official Skynet policy __

Re: bzip2 in src tree

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Brad Knowles wrote: > Can't we do both? Use gzip on the install floppy, but include > bzip2 in /usr/src, and make sure that all the various programs that > deal with tarballs and gzip'ed tarballs can also deal with bzip2 > tarballs (including in the ports system)? >

Re: bzip2 in src tree

At 9:54 AM -0800 1/24/00, David O'Brien wrote: >On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > And just how do I increase the space on a CDROM??? > > > > Include another CD-ROM. > >You are missing the point. The installation CDROM only shows >you the packages on that CDROM,

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzi

On 23-Jan-00 Rod Taylor wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, you wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Rod Taylor wrote: >> >> > Personally, I'd like to see less stuff in the system source for >> > smaller installs and lower compile time leaving it up to me to >> > customize the individual stuff thats install

Re: bzip2 in src tree

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Brad Knowles wrote: > And the only cost is the slight expansion of the amount of disk > space required to store the source code in /usr/src and the binaries > in /usr/bin [...] And the time and disk space required to make world. No thank you. Remember that the only

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzi

Alex Zepeda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 24-Jan-00 David O'Brien wrote: > > > running Winloose, so I actually *CAN* run this in the background. I > > > certainly was not idle while Bzip2 was compressing. > > Its pretty annoying waiting for som

Re: bzip2 in src tree

On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:16:32PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > And just how do I increase the space on a CDROM??? > > Include another CD-ROM. You are missing the point. The installation CDROM only shows you the packages on that CDROM, this gives newbies the impression we don't have very ma

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On 23/01 22:36, David O'Brien wrote: > BUT, if we bzip2'ed the base system distribution, we'd be able to fit > more Packages on the 1st CDROM, and that is a BIG win. With it in the This would indeed be good. Let's also remember that 'tar' has built-in support for bzip2 so it's not as if it wou

Re: bzip2 in src tree

At 12:16 PM +0100 2000/1/24, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Using bzip2 for the FreeBSD distribution sets would increase > the minimum memory requirement by 4 Mbyte (or about 2.5 Mbyte > using the -s option of bunzip2, but which doubles decompression > time). I really don't see what everyone

Re: bzip2 in src tree

David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-current: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 10:26:48AM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: >> >> Saving 10% or 20% on disk space is not worth wasting >= 10 times more >> CPU time than gzip. Disk space is cheap nowadays, but upgrading to a >> CPU that is

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 01:19:32AM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > No, I said ask me again in 18 months, not NOW. Even if it didn't have the > memory problem, gzip has greater compatibility and does the minimum > job. It's not required for the base system. BUT, if we bzip2'ed the base system distri

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzi

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 24-Jan-00 David O'Brien wrote: > > running Winloose, so I actually *CAN* run this in the background. I > > certainly was not idle while Bzip2 was compressing. > > Its pretty annoying waiting for something to compress if you want to do > othe

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzi

On 24-Jan-00 David O'Brien wrote: > running Winloose, so I actually *CAN* run this in the background. I > certainly was not idle while Bzip2 was compressing. Its pretty annoying waiting for something to compress if you want to do other things that depend on it being compressed.. --- Daniel O

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Alex Zepeda wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > Ask me again in 18 months, maybe bzip2 will use less memory and be > > faster, and it's quite likely that it will be far more popular at ftp > > sites. > > Have you looked at the memory usage when you use th

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: > Ask me again in 18 months, maybe bzip2 will use less memory and be > faster, and it's quite likely that it will be far more popular at ftp > sites. Have you looked at the memory usage when you use the -s flag? - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMA

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 08:21:12PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Taking my 243662 KB ~/Mail: gzip -9 every file: 80420 KB bzip2 -9 every file:70034 KB tar ~/Mail and gzip -9: 78840 KB(4m37s) tar ~/Mail and bzip2 -9:68960 KB(14m29s) Who cares i

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 10:26:48AM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > > Saving 10% or 20% on disk space is not worth wasting >= 10 times more > > CPU time than gzip. Disk space is cheap nowadays, but upgrading to a > > CPU that is 10 times faster is not

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 10:26:48AM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > (I once tried to compress our FreeBSD ISO images with bzip2, > just to compare the space savings with gzip. I aborted the > experiment after 6 hours (!). gzip took about 30 minutes. > Consequently, bzip2 was considered unusable and

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 10:26:48AM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Saving 10% or 20% on disk space is not worth wasting >= 10 times more > CPU time than gzip. Disk space is cheap nowadays, but upgrading to a > CPU that is 10 times faster is not. And just how do I increase the space on a CDROM???

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 03:01:23PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Juergen Lock wrote: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > > >... > > >A case would have to be built that bzip2 does something critical that > > >cannot be done without bzip2. Else, it stays as a fine

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Juergen Lock wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > >... > >A case would have to be built that bzip2 does something critical that > >cannot be done without bzip2. Else, it stays as a fine port. Heck, emacs > >is a fine port too, but it'll never get into the ba

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

Ollivier Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > According to Don Lewis: > > Doesn't bzip2 require a lot more memory for decompression? As I > > recall, someone mentioned that this would cause problems for installing > > releases on machines with only a small amount of RAM. > Yes and is much slower

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

According to Don Lewis: > Doesn't bzip2 require a lot more memory for decompression? As I > recall, someone mentioned that this would cause problems for installing > releases on machines with only a small amount of RAM. Yes and is much slower than gzip. Having bzip2 as a port is enough IMO. --

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >... >A case would have to be built that bzip2 does something critical that >cannot be done without bzip2. Else, it stays as a fine port. Heck, emacs >is a fine port too, but it'll never get into the base system. Very true, but i can actually think of o

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

At Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:48 +0100 (CET), Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't like bzip2 for the sole fact that it takes _ages_ to > compress files, compared to gzip. Saving 10% or 20% on disk > space is not worth wasting >= 10 times more CPU time than gzip. > Disk space is cheap n

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-current: > If I may inject some possibly-irrelevant fact into this > discussion... gzip (or rather, the ``deflate'' compression algorithm > and the libz file format) has been adopted into a number of formal > standards. It's likely tha

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

In message , Alex Zepeda wro te: } On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Rod Taylor wrote: } } > Personally, I'd like to see less stuff in the system source for } > smaller installs and lower compile time leaving it up to me to } > customize the individual stuff

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

If I may inject some possibly-irrelevant fact into this discussion... gzip (or rather, the ``deflate'' compression algorithm and the libz file format) has been adopted into a number of formal standards. It's likely that it will remain with us for a long time. For those of us who eschew bloatware,

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Don Lewis wrote: > Doesn't bzip2 require a lot more memory for decompression? As I > recall, someone mentioned that this would cause problems for installing > releases on machines with only a small amount of RAM. man bzip2, and then look at the memory management section. I

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Jan 22, 5:04pm, Alex Zepeda wrote: } Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip } What if we began to use bzip2 instead of gzip for things like man pages, } or releases, etc? Doesn't bzip2 require a lot more memory for decompression? As I recall, so

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, you wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > Personally, I'd like to see less stuff in the system source for > > smaller installs and lower compile time leaving it up to me to > > customize the individual stuff thats installed. Unless bzip is used > > by > 99.9%

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Rod Taylor wrote: > Personally, I'd like to see less stuff in the system source for > smaller installs and lower compile time leaving it up to me to > customize the individual stuff thats installed. Unless bzip is used > by > 99.9% of the FreeBSD installs, I'm willing to let

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

-On [2123 00:01], Akinori MUSHA aka knu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Yes, they are pretty big enough to see the difference between two... > > .tar.bz2.tar.gz >lynx2.8.2rel1 1.4MB 1.8MB >WindowMaeker 0.61.1 1.6MB 1.9MB >gimp-1.1.13

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, you wrote: > At Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:42:55 -0500 (EST), > Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A case would have to be built that bzip2 does something critical that > > cannot be done without bzip2. Else, it stays as a fine port. Heck, emacs > > is a fine port too, but

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

At Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:42:55 -0500 (EST), Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A case would have to be built that bzip2 does something critical that > cannot be done without bzip2. Else, it stays as a fine port. Heck, emacs > is a fine port too, but it'll never get into the base system. Hmm

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2support for distribution patches)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Will Andrews wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:44:46AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Truely, I wish to import bzip2 to -current src tree. :) > > Is there a problem about some restriction for distributing bzip2? > > # I'm sorry I don't know about that. > > <2 5003-0>

Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

Will Andrews wrote: > Nope - looks like it could be a candidate for importing to the source > tree. However, I'm not sure everyone on current@ is going to agree, > since we already have something for compression (gzip) that is pretty > standard around the world. Ever notice how on some occasions

bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:44:46AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Truely, I wish to import bzip2 to -current src tree. :) > Is there a problem about some restriction for distributing bzip2? > # I'm sorry I don't know about that. <2 5003-0> (00-01-22 12:27:37) [will@shadow /usr/ports/archivers/