On 1 August 2013 16:21, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 03:52:38PM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> On 1 August 2013 15:40, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:24:32PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: >> >> [...] in preparation to add non-gzip compression support for control.tar >> > >> > May I ask why would you want that? >> > >> > There's a lot of extra complexity, incompatibility with existing tools, >> > added moving parts... and I'm not aware of any gain. >> > >> > xz, while vastly superior to gzip and bzip2 for bulk data, suffers from >> > slow start: for files a few tens of kilobytes or smaller, xz compresses >> > worse than gzip. Thus, control.tar.xz is hardly ever a good idea. >> > >> > On the other hand, control files compress pretty well, so you want _some_ >> > form of compression. For files this small, CPU costs are totally >> > negligible. >> > >> > Thus, with .tar.gz being either the best or very close to the best, >> > what would be the point of this change? >> > >> >> For debian-installer (et. al. components) at the moment control.tar.gz >> is often larger than data.tar.xz since "templates" are very long and >> include a lot of translations. > > Hmm... indeed, some udebs have monstrous control tarballs, the biggest one > being 1167360 bytes long (uncompressed). > >> So for that package group it's valuable to have control.tar.xz. > > Still, total gains for all udebs (jessie netinst amd64) are only 1.22MB. > Should I try this for regular debs? >
libc6 compressed control.tar.gz is 66kB It has uncompressed 111kB symbols, 68.5kB templates..... Regards, Dmitrijs. -- 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/canbhluifsouuw0s7vgghk4bvtw_rddu6yxxn9jysivoglm_...@mail.gmail.com
