-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 05:30:59PM +0200, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: >> Preben Randhol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> My point is that if I choose to install a doc packages I intend to use >>> it frequently and would therefore like that it is user friendly rather >>> than that one has squeezed some few kilobytes out by gzipping files. If >> Agreed. Particularly since the saving isn't sooo big at all. >> On my - of course, not representative - workstation an uncompressed >> doc/ tree takes only about a third more space (and this includes all >> the ChangeLogs, READMEs etc. shipped with each package). >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# du -sh /usr/share/doc >> 839M /usr/share/doc >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cp -ia /usr/share/doc /var/tmp >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cd /var/tmp/doc >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/doc# find . -type f -name \*.gz -print0 | xargs >> -0 gzip -d >> gzip: ./kernel-package/Rationale already exists; not overwritten >> gzip: ./kernel-package/HOWTO-Linux-2.6-Woody already exists; not >> overwritten >> gzip: ./gcc-4.1-base/.changelog.Debian.gz has 1 other link -- unchanged >> gzip: ./gcc-4.1-base/changelog.Debian.gz has 1 other link -- unchanged >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/doc# du -sh . >> 1,3G . >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/doc# > > Interesting stat. Let me follow-up. On my system "du -sh ." returned: > total /usr 2.4G > compressed /usr/share/doc 239M > uncompressed /usr/share/doc 435M > > Although it looks like 40% saving in space, its overall impact is less > than 10% shrink in size. > [snip] > > Since dh_compress does compression (except the copyright file, .html and > .css files, and files that appear to be already compressed based on > their extensions) per its manpage, why not treat PDF as "compressed" > which I thought is the case. In this sense, we do not need policy > change. Just minor change in code to realize what dh_compress claim to > do. > > It is very slow to open over 1MB size PDF file even on a system with > proper auto-ungzipping. So aside from pedantic policy argument, we > should uncompress PDF. > > Osamu > > PS: I did not feel like using -X option now because debhelper default > should be desired behaviour. But I may change my mind soon. > > Reference: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp2# find . -type f -name \*.pdf.gz -print0 | xargs > -0 gzip -l > compressed uncompressed ratio uncompressed_name > 228023 510762 55.4% ./debian-policy/fhs/fhs-2.3.pdf > 486418 682351 28.7% ./debian-policy/policy.pdf > 318890 456439 30.1% ./debian/FAQ/debian-faq.en.pdf > 124536 155443 19.9% > ./shared-mime-info/shared-mime-info-spec.pdf > 798976 1239893 35.6% > ./Debian/reference/reference.en.pdf > 692308 1063782 34.9% > ./Debian/reference/reference.de.pdf > 808949 1245798 35.1% > ./Debian/reference/reference.es.pdf [snip] > 168530 181283 7.1% ./fcitx/fcitx3.pdf > 2346394 3590496 34.7% ./ddd-doc/ddd.pdf > 145928 250564 41.8% ./ddd-doc/ddd-themes.pdf > 790846 1166650 32.2% > ./harden-doc/securing-debian-howto.de.pdf > 730825 1093197 33.2% > ./harden-doc/securing-debian-howto.en.pdf > 758996 1109269 31.6% > ./harden-doc/securing-debian-howto.fr.pdf > 50136586 67439000 25.7% (totals)
Thanks to Martin Wuertle for pointing out the pdftk package! I took the highly compressible fhs-2.3.pdf and ran a few tests. No commentary, just numbers here: $ dir fhs-2.3.pdf.gz - -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 228023 2006-06-25 06:14 fhs-2.3.pdf.gz $ gunzip -v fhs-2.3.pdf.gz fhs-2.3.pdf.gz: 55.4% -- replaced with fhs-2.3.pdf $ dir fhs-2.3.pdf* - -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 510762 2006-06-25 06:14 fhs-2.3.pdf $ pdftk fhs-2.3.pdf output fhs-2.3.uncompr.pdf uncompress $ dir fhs-2.3*.pdf* - -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 510762 2006-06-25 06:14 fhs-2.3.pdf - -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 2883196 2006-06-25 06:16 fhs-2.3.uncompr.pdf $ gzip -v fhs-2.3.uncompr.pdf fhs-2.3.uncompr.pdf: 88.7% -- replaced with fhs-2.3.uncompr.pdf.gz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dir fhs-2.3*.pdf* - -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 510762 2006-06-25 06:14 fhs-2.3.pdf - -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 324732 2006-06-25 06:16 fhs-2.3.uncompr.pdf.gz - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEnnLgS9HxQb37XmcRAtEBAJwNmpSRDR5K6sJkcg17V5D7+M7DewCg4tON gullYUwSc0oYBNfnhnARkQk= =RDQa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
