On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Christoph Junghans <ott...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 2012/9/26 Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org>: >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn >>> <chith...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> Michael Mol schrieb: >>>>> A few months ago, I filed bug 423651 to ask that bzip2 on the install >>>>> media be replaced with >>>>> pbzip2. >>>> >>>> If I understand correctly, pbzip2 depends on bzip2. So what you are >>>> asking is that pbzip2 is preferred over bzip2 when both are installed, >>>> and that pbzip2 is installed by default? >>> >>> pbzip2 uses libbzip2, which I understand bzip2 to also be a wrapper around. >>> >> >> libbz2 is built and installed by the app-arch/bzip2 package. Thus, >> app-arch/pbzip2 depends on app-arch/bzip2, unless someone rips libbz2 >> out into a separate ebuild. > That sound like a plan. Maybe bzip2 should become a virtual as busybox > also provides an implementation.
This makes sense. And going back to my initial issue, I don't really care which implementation gets used on the bootable media, so long as it supports scaling to use my CPU cores. -- :wq
