On 11/29/2010 06:24, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 28.11.2010 22:12, schrieb Goran Tal: >> Now that the base system supports xz compression, it should be used as >> the default compression for packages. >> >> Files compressed with xz are smaller and decompress faster than those >> compressed with bzip2. This can make an installation much quicker, >> especially when the complete system is installed or upgraded. >> >> Any reasons against it? > > xz compressed files can take up CONSIDERABLY more memory to decompress > than files compressed with bzip2 or gzip. Keep that in mind so that > systems that are low on memory can still decompress xz packages. If you > don't fit into RAM for decompression, it will be unusable.
Adding to this, as the manual says... The decompressing host will need to have at minimal 5% -> 20% of memory 'available' for decompression of what the compressing host had. Seeing as FreeBSD still runs on systems with memory as little as 200MB "~20% of 1024MB" and quite possible to run on systems with memory of 64MB "~5% of 1024MB" I would not see any benefit in modifying the default memory limit on a compressing host to accommodate for these system rather than using gzip(1) or bzip2(1) by default. It would be nice to support xz(1) compression for large selective packages like firefox or openoffice as those will never run on smaller systems. -- jhell,v _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
