On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:36 -0500, Jon Hood wrote: > Hey Patrick, > I agree, tar.bz2 is the way to go when possible, but I have many > friends on old bsd-based systems and some old linux boxes I must > maintain that don't have bzip2 support. Normally if I know a package I > write is going to need to go on an older system, I'll package it in both > formats, but there are times when bz2 is just not an option. Is that a problem in the sense "it doesn't run at all" or is it "they'd need to install extra dependencies" ?
> That having been said, it IS an option in 95%+ of the cases I deal > with, and for being on a cable modem, bzip2 has saved quite a bit of > time (and money) in the past. I just did a conversion run over all of distfiles just for fun (~10h on an AMD64) Input: 15634581 kB Output: 13462050 kB Difference: ~14% Compared to my earlier run with ~830M this has less difference, but I think users would appreciate a reduction of 10-30% of their downloads. Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
