From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 23 14:56:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B9516A4CE for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pursued-with.net (adsl-66-125-9-242.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [66.125.9.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96E643D31 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:56:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net) Received: from babelfish.pursued-with.net (babelfish.pursued-with.net [192.168.168.42]) by pursued-with.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB20C10D695; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Kevin Stevens To: Peter Leftwich In-Reply-To: <22145.208.247.148.13.1082756027.squirrel@webmail.alienwebshop.com> Message-ID: References: <22145.208.247.148.13.1082756027.squirrel@webmail.alienwebshop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 25mb vs 300mb ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:56:44 -0000 On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Peter Leftwich wrote: > At the FreeBSD.Org ports website, however, it says the total size of > the tarball (tar/gzip) is 25mb. Is this a matter of compressed > versus uncompressed? Why the discrepancy? That's part of it, the other part is that the ports consist of a lot of small files, so you have a significant block/directory size overhead as well. KeS