Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 01:59:29 +0900 From: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Alex, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org>, Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua> Subject: Re: trying to use xz on manuals. Message-ID: <20101208015929.4aec1bdb.nork@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1639A255-7C84-4D81-A97E-AEB624E68A70@kientzle.com> References: <20101206171358.GA17125@ravenloft.kiev.ua> <9132C068-A9C7-41EE-AA98-714385441EE3@mac.com> <1639A255-7C84-4D81-A97E-AEB624E68A70@kientzle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:50:44 -0800 Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> wrote: > >> Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's to bz2 or xz doesn't make much sense. > > Oh, agreed. The issue with small files is that they will always take up at least one sector [*]; different compression routines don't gain any benefit if they don't change the number of sectors needed to store the file. > > More than half of the manpages end up as 1K .gz catman files as it is; ~90% are 2K or smaller. > It might make sense if XZ decompression were significantly > faster than GZip decompression. (Especially since man pages > are decompressed much more often than they are compressed.) Oh, that's good! But this setting causes pkg-plist break of ports. Maybe, some ports chase bsd.own.mk (COMPRESS_CMD, COMPRESS_EXT), but it assumed that MANEXT is .gz:-(. Thank you. -- Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101208015929.4aec1bdb.nork>