why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
Hello. Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file? -rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2 -rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz It's about 25% can be saved in download. wbr, Serge. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Thus spake Sergey I. Golod ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file? > > -rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2 > > -rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz > > It's about 25% can be saved in download. > > Yeah, but I guess it would take about twice the time to unpack. Please > don't do that to my poor 486 :-(( But extra size = extra traffic = extra money, that's worse. Unpack no cost at all (except you time, ofcourse). wbr, Serge. p.s. If Debian change default compression to bzip2 in future, we can save about ~20-25% in size of distribution. It especially important to reduce network traffic in update&upgrade operations. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:15:10PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote: > > Hello. > > > > Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file? > > > > -rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2 > > -rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz > > > > It's about 25% can be saved in download. > > Historical reasons - bzip2 is newer than gzip, and didn't exist when the > choice was made. ok. now bzip2 exist - first reason is not applied :-) > Standards reasons - gzip is essential: yes on Debian, and is required for dpkg > anyway. bzip2 is still priority optional, and it hasn't gained enough usage > through other channels to be raised to standard. why we can't change this behavior? At least in woody. > > Speed reasons - gzip is significantly faster than bzip2, which matters > for old ix86 (x=3,4) and m68k machines which run Debian. But extra size = extra money, that's more worse. On saved money everybody can upgrade they old machines. wbr, Serge. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why apt/dpkg not using bzip2
Ben Collins wrote: > > > Yeah, but I guess it would take about twice the time to unpack. Please > > > don't do that to my poor 486 :-(( > > > > But extra size = extra traffic = extra money, that's worse. Unpack no cost > > at all > > (except you time, ofcourse). > > > > wbr, Serge. > > > > p.s. If Debian change default compression to bzip2 in future, we can save > > about > > ~20-25% in size of distribution. It especially important to reduce network > > traffic in update&upgrade operations. > > Now, we cannot save that much. Your example of compressing pure text is > not a measure of this whole archive. I've tested it, and converted an > entire local binary-sparc/main tree to internal bzip2 compression. It > saved a grand total of 197 megs from 1.5gigs. Roughly 15% at a quick > guess. This wouldn't even drop us down a single CD. Yes, binaries. But you also forgot about sources. Or 15% - include binary&source? > We have new things in the upcoming dpkg, one of those being to support > bzip2 in the package format. However, I don't see it being used in > Debian's archives right away. Anyway, sometime Debian-community must start this job. wbr, Serge. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
