On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:15:40PM +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 14:14 +0000, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan!
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 08:52:23PM +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > > So here's my proposed file format for the zchunk file. Should I
> > > add
> > > some flags to facilitate possible different compression formats?
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+==================+=================+
> > > > ID | Index size | Compressed Index | Compressed Dict |
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+==================+=================+
> > >
> > > +===========+===========+
> > > > Chunk | Chunk | ==> More chunks
> > >
> > > +===========+===========+
> > > [...]
> >
> > This may be an unfair question, but how does it compare to the
> > 'gzip --rsyncable' + zsync approach that we (openSUSE) are
> > using since almost eight years? I guess it's better, but how much?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michael.
>
> I've run some tests with zsync (since it's not in Fedora, I rebuilt the
> latest Tumbleweed source rpm), but ran into problems (which is probably
> unsurprising, given that upstream hasn't released an update in eight
> years).
Oh, I didn't propose to use the zsync tool itself, but just the
file format. I.e. --rsyncable compressed files that are accompanied
by .zsync files.
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
_______________________________________________
Rpm-ecosystem mailing list
Rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
