On 01/04/08 at 23:49 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 01:42:32PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > On the more general issue of lzma-compresses packages, I find a 34MB > > RAM requirement quite hefty for general purpose use; that is, unless > > we restrict lzma compression to packages that wouldn't make sense on > > hardware with so little RAM anyway (such as e.g. OpenOffice.org, but > > nothing in base, nothing one would install on a pure router / > > lightweight server such as iptables, kernels, FTP/HTTP daemons, ...). > > lzma compression has to be explicitly enabled on a per-package basis. > Ideally, it's only going to be enabled on those packages where it makes the > most sense to do so - i.e., precisely those packages that get the greatest > absolute size savings by using the different compression method. > > OOo is a great example of a package that benefits. Here is the analysis > that was done based on Ubuntu 7.10 to evaluate the benefits of lzma, > including a list of the top ten binary packages by size savings: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/dpkg-lzma > > So of course besides OOo on there we also find the kernel packages. We > wouldn't have to use lzma for the kernels though, if that would raise the > minimum memory requirements for servers, or lzma could be selectively > enabled on a per-flavor or per-arch basis as appropriate.
The results are a bit misleading, because they compare the absolute gain. Sorting by relative gain, I get: libgl1-mesa-dri_7.0.1-1ubuntu3_i386.deb 78% saved docbook-xml_4.5-4_all.deb 75% saved ttf-arabeyes_1.1-9_all.deb 68% saved foomatic-db-hpijs_20070813-0ubuntu1_all.deb 66% saved libvte9_0.16.9-0ubuntu3_i386.deb 65% saved ttf-gentium_1.02-2ubuntu2_all.deb 64% saved smbclient_3.0.26a-1ubuntu2_i386.deb 64% saved etc. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]