On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:06:34PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
> David Starner wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:15:10PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
> > >
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz
> > >
> > > It's about 25% can be saved in download.
> >
> > Historical reasons - bzip2 is newer than gzip, and didn't exist when the
> > choice was made.
>
> ok. now bzip2 exist - first reason is not applied :-)
Historical reasons still apply because there is a significant cost in
changing historical practices.
> > Standards reasons - gzip is essential: yes on Debian, and is required for
> > dpkg
> > anyway. bzip2 is still priority optional, and it hasn't gained enough usage
> > through other channels to be raised to standard.
>
> why we can't change this behavior? At least in woody.
I guess it will be changed, according to Ben Collins. The last comment still
stands, though - it's not used outside Debian enough to be standard.
> > Speed reasons - gzip is significantly faster than bzip2, which matters
> > for old ix86 (x=3,4) and m68k machines which run Debian.
>
> But extra size = extra money, that's more worse. On saved money everybody can
> upgrade they old machines.
Well, some of us don't have that problem - most Americans have flat rate
connections.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org
It was starting to rain on the night that they cried forever,
It was blinding with snow on the night that they screamed goodbye.
- Dio, "Rock and Roll Children"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
