On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 10:24:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > So of course besides OOo on there we also find the kernel packages. We > > wouldn't have to use lzma for the kernels though, if that would raise the > > minimum memory requirements for servers, or lzma could be selectively > > enabled on a per-flavor or per-arch basis as appropriate.
> The results are a bit misleading, because they compare the absolute > gain. No, why would that be misleading? You don't want the overhead of lzma compression for a 10-fold reduction in the size of a package that's already in the bottom 5% of packages by absolute size. It's the absolute size savings that counts - that's what's going to have the biggest impact on mirror size, mirroring time, CD set size, and download times for users. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
