Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)
At Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:48 +0100 (CET), Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't like bzip2 for the sole fact that it takes _ages_ to compress files, compared to gzip. Saving 10% or 20% on disk space is not worth wasting = 10 times more CPU time than gzip. Disk space is cheap nowadays, but upgrading to a CPU that is 10 times faster is not. But when one compresses a file with bzip2 and prepare a smaller distribution, hundreds of people can save their download time. That's why we compress things. I'd focus on the receivers' side. Of course a necessary manner is preparing also a gzip'ed file for those who prefer gzip's less memory usage rather than bzip2's higher compression. And still, a standard is a standard. (I once tried to compress our FreeBSD ISO images with bzip2, just to compare the space savings with gzip. I aborted the experiment after 6 hours (!). gzip took about 30 minutes. Consequently, bzip2 was considered unusable and went into the trash can.) Not everyone wants/needs to compress such a big stuff with bzip2 to waste time. But having bzip2/bunzip2 gives us an option. I'd vote for keeping things as they are: bzip2 is fine as a port. Despite all of above, I have to agree that, since whether having bzip2 is already an option thanks to the port. :) -- / /__ __ / ) ) ) ) / 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
Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches)
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 lynx2.8.2rel11.4MB 1.8MB WindowMaeker 0.61.1 1.6MB 1.9MB gimp-1.1.13 6.2MB 8.0MB kdebase-1.1.27.0MB 8.9MB linux-2.2.1412.3MB 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
