> (xz is 85% of bz2 size) > (xz is 70% of bz2 size) > (xz is 57% of bz2 size) > > So I think we could save ourselves and our mirror providers, CDN, and users > some disk space and bandwidth by switching to xz. bz2 was the best available > built-in compression on Mac OS X 10.6 when we started doing binary archives > but there are better options now.
I agree wholeheartedly, but since you mention modern compression algorithms, isn’t there another one (or more) which would be yet more efficient than xz? Vincent
