Le Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:48:50AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : > > * A year ago, I repacked CD1, .xz took 66% space needed by .gz. This time, > on the whole archive, gains are somewhat smaller: 72%. I guess that CD1 > is code-heavy while packages of lower priorities tend to have more data.
Also, many files in /usr/share/doc are gzipped as per §12.3; that can prevent to get the full benefit of xz compression. In some of my packages containing mostly such files, the benefit of switching to xz is almost null. I wonder if it still makes sense to compress these files by default: - Most systems have enough space to keep them uncompressed, - others systems just do not install these files, - some filesystems are compressed on the fly, - the binary packages themselves are compressed. Perhaps we could consider allowing xz compression or no compression at all for the files in /usr/share/doc, especially when they are all contained in a dedicated package that is not dispensable. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110815081655.gb2...@merveille.plessy.net
