Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 23:47:49 +1030 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, ache@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Policy on bzip2? Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.05.9901012346060.20358-100000@bragg> In-Reply-To: <199901011308.FAA11443@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * Is there a policy on when it's good to use bzipped distfiles (which are > * usually much smaller than their gzipped counterparts)? For those of us with > * slow network links, the extra ~30% compression is extremely handy (not to > * mention better for conserving bandwidth on the net generally). Lots of folks > * are jumping on the bandwagon and providing their tars in bzipped form (as well > * as gzipped), so this seems likely to only increase in the future. > * > * Are there any reasons NOT to use bzippped distfiles where they're available? > > Unless it is much slower for decompression (I believe it's only slower > for compression), I don't see any. Having smaller distfiles will help > us (ftp, CDROM) too. In my experience this is correct. www/lynx-current is one candidate for this - the distfile is about 1.3M compared to 1.7M. Kris ----- (ASP) Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) announced today that the release of its productivity suite, Office 2000, will be delayed until the first quarter of 1901. 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?Pine.OSF.4.05.9901012346060.20358-100000>