On 2017-01-15 22:06, Daniel Engberg wrote:
On 2017-01-15 21:56, Christian Lamparter wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:25:28 PM CET Daniel Engberg wrote:
Thanks for submitting a patch but can you please outline why we would
want to switch from a tarball release to a git repo pull for iperf3?
Actually, it's in the commit. It saves a couple of KiB since we can
switch to
xz along the way too. As for iperf 3.1.5 this is:
550862 Bytes for iperf-3.1.5.tar.gz
vs.
400468 Bytes for
iperf-3.1.5-a46d5aec9726e196e86ab192c3f77dea6a3beb8e.tar.xz
That's around 27% savings of bandwidth. Because once it's uploaded
onto the mirror
the download methods will pick it from there - instead of the listed
address.
Anyway, if you have your own idea of how to do it: Then just make a
patch as well.
Regards,
Christian
I'm all for saving space and bandwidth but as far as I know the common
practice is to use tarballs where it makes sense (ie pretty much
everywhere) and upstream download mirrors/sites. Directing all users
to the LEDE "backup" mirror is not a desirable outcome as there's no
official xz package. That's just my point of view.
Regards,
Daniel Engberg
Hi Christian,
I just wanted to information you (as asked by mkresin) that I've
submitted a pr on GitHub
(https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/755) that uses the release
tarball which is considered to be the preferred way for this package.
Something completely different, great work on the ipq4xx stuff. Any
plans on upstreaming it?
Best regards,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
