Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:29:58 +0100 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: Michael Searle <searle@longacre.demon.co.uk>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Policy on bzip2? Message-ID: <19990103152958.A25190@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <Marcel-1.46-0102194124-0b0cjo5@longacre.demon.co.uk>; from Michael Searle on Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 07:41:24PM %2B0000 References: <XFMail.990101204155.asmodai@wxs.nl> <Marcel-1.46-0102194124-0b0cjo5@longacre.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <Marcel-1.46-0102194124-0b0cjo5@longacre.demon.co.uk>, Michael Searle wrote: > It is several times slower for decompression as well, and requires a > lot more memory than gunzip (even in low memory, low speed mode). On > a fast machine bunzip2 decompresses at about 500K/s (or 250K/s in > low memory mode) while gunzip gets 3500K/s, so while it would speed > up most net installs it would slow down a CD install. We're talking distfiles, not packages. Compared to building from source the decompression effort is unusally neglectable, no matter what decompression. I would also think that using bzip2 for big binary distfiles (linux_lib, linux_devel) makes sense since these are very big and at least linux_lib is due to some updates and would cross my wire several times in the near future. That way people may use the port/package choice for choosing bzip2/gzip :-) Erich, do you copy? I'll take the advice of this thread and will use bzip2 for the distfiles I maintain (except rtdate :-). Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990103152958.A25190>