Brian Hall
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:04:53 -0800
OK, so a big tarball would have a lot of overhead; how about xmame just supporting the individual game rom "groups" being bzip2-ed vice gzipped? This should be a minor source code change, or is it already an option? As far a wasted space by having many small archives, my suggestion there would be to use a filesystem that handles that well, like reiserfs. One small problem with this, from the user point of view: this would hurt cross platform use of the roms. For example, Win32 mame would not be able to open them, I suppose. I still think it should be an option if someone wants to save the space (using bzip2 vice gzip, I mean). On Monday 27 November 2000 11:28 pm, you wrote: > > About the saved space, I think that gz compress about 30% more than > > zip, > > I think this figure is a little out there. If I compress with maximum > compression using zip, and maximum compression using gzip, I get > about 5-10% (tops) savings. It is, however, standardised across > platforms.. > > > and bz2 about 20-30% more than gz. > > This, however, is no lie. Bzip2 is the bomb. I get a minimum of like > 10-15% over gzip every time I compress something with bzip2. Not > everyone has bzip2, although the support couldn't hurt. > > > And the gz and bzip2 are open formats. The zip not. > > Being an open source freak, I'll go with this one too. Hooray for > source code! > > just a few cents for me to add in. -- http://www.bigfoot.com/~brihall Linux Consultant Blessed are the censors; they shall inhibit the earth. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]