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... seems NetBSD folks already have bzip2 in their source tree,
while OpenBSD folks not. Then how about us?
IMHO, bzip2 tarballs are increasing in number out there because each
software is growing bigger and bigger nowadays, and thus in great
demand is the better compression: i.e. bzip2 rather than gzip.
I don't think we should compress everything with bzip2 instead of
gzip, however, I believe we'd better have bunzip2 by default as there
are many software which both *.gz and *.bz2 are provided for download,
such as Lynx, WindowMaker, GIMP, KDE and Linux kernel.
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 6.2MB 8.0MB
kdebase-1.1.2 7.0MB 8.9MB
linux-2.2.14 12.3MB 15.2MB
It's crystal clear bzip2 wins in these cases. and far enough.
--
/
/__ __
/ ) ) ) ) / http://www.idaemons.org/knu/
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We are but hungry.. Associated Ita-meshi Daemons!"
http://www.idaemons.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
