Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Inno setup (for the windows installer) uses bz2, so that is
already a start :-)
I think the lazarus inno setup installer uses a variant of 7z. But its
compressing time is about 1 MB (compressed) per minute: so 40 minutes
for a 40 MB installer.
Vincent
_
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, ??? wrote:
To save your time, you should limit your tests to:
It doesn't take much human time.
1. Command-line tools.
Creation of installs is automated.
GUI tools cannot be used in automated builds.
2. Completely cross-platform.
For obvious reas
> To save your time, you should limit your tests to:
It doesn't take much human time.
> 1. Command-line tools.
> Creation of installs is automated.
> GUI tools cannot be used in automated builds.
> 2. Completely cross-platform.
> For obvious reasons.
> 3. Completely Open source.
>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, ??? wrote:
Correction: Rar produced 212 Mb on OO 2.0.2 sources, but using "force text
compression" makes it produce 206 Mb with not really big time overhead.
Then try one of the last compressors as PAQ8, your OO 2.0.2
sources will take days in compress, but
Correction: Rar produced 212 Mb on OO 2.0.2 sources, but using "force text
compression" makes it produce 206 Mb with not really big time overhead.
> Then try one of the last compressors as PAQ8, your OO 2.0.2
> sources will take days in compress, but i think you can get 140-150
> MB or even le
I tried to benchmark a little. Archivers were limited to 512 Mb.
Timings only in the second test. Precision is kept 1 Mb/10 seconds
intentionally.
There are many comprehensive benchmarks, but I tested nearly the
last versions.
OpenOffice 2.0.2 sources, 1209 Mb (there are several .gz and
> bzip2 has similar compression rates (except maybe for multimedia
> files, which isn't the case) and 7zip/LZMA usually compresses better
> than RAR.
> 7zip isn't installed by default in any distro AFAIK, but at least it
> open source.
> RAR would be my last option...
I tried to benchmark a little
ϸòð Êîñàðåâñêèé ñ mail.ru wrote:
> FK> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>> On 24 mei 2006, at 17:30, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>>
Not really because it is simply a tar ball of several .tar.gz. Because
gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>>> Isn't bzip2 available more or less every
On 5/24/06, Пётр Косаревский с mail.ru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FK> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> On 24 mei 2006, at 17:30, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>
>>> Not really because it is simply a tar ball of several .tar.gz. Because
>>> gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>> Isn't bzip2 a
FK> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> On 24 mei 2006, at 17:30, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>
>>> Not really because it is simply a tar ball of several .tar.gz. Because
>>> gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>> Isn't bzip2 available more or less everywhere nowadays? (at least where
>> gzip
Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 24 mei 2006, at 17:30, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>> Not really because it is simply a tar ball of several .tar.gz. Because
>> gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>
> Isn't bzip2 available more or less everywhere nowadays? (at least where
> gzip is a
On 24 mei 2006, at 17:30, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Not really because it is simply a tar ball of several .tar.gz. Because
gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
Isn't bzip2 available more or less everywhere nowadays? (at least
where gzip is available, and in particular on L
Krishna wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there any particular reason for not compressing the release
> tarballs (Linux f.e) with say bzip2 or even 7zip? The uncompressed
> tarball weighs in around 24M and I'm sure bzipping will reduce it by a
> large margin.
Not really because it is simply a tar ball of
Hi all,
Is there any particular reason for not compressing the release
tarballs (Linux f.e) with say bzip2 or even 7zip? The uncompressed
tarball weighs in around 24M and I'm sure bzipping will reduce it by a
large margin.
Cheers,
Krishna
--
You think you know when you learn, are more
sure whe
On vrijdag, jul 25, 2003, at 14:17 Europe/Brussels, A.J. Venter wrote:
No sense reinventing the wheel, except for one tiny
downside - we have no access to the ide sources.
Sure you do, checkout the module "ide" from cvs. The problem with the
IDE is that you can't build the version we distribute,
Trouble is, that is the only feature I miss !
Everything else about the borland IDE is downright annoying in it's
primitiveness. Had this not been the case, I would have been using the
fp ide anyway.
I use vim myself.
Hence my thought of a separate proggie that can do this. The easy way
here woul
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:33:19AM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On vrijdag, jul 25, 2003, at 08:30 Europe/Brussels, A.J. Venter wrote:
>
> >I miss being able to put the cursor on a function/procedure/reserved
> >word name and hitting F1 to see the help section for it.
>
> The text mode IDE alre
On vrijdag, jul 25, 2003, at 08:30 Europe/Brussels, A.J. Venter wrote:
I miss being able to put the cursor on a function/procedure/reserved
word name and hitting F1 to see the help section for it.
The text mode IDE already has support for this (using the html
documentation).
Jonas
_
While I absolutely adore FreePascal I miss one feature from my old
borland days, but that would require a little work.
I miss being able to put the cursor on a function/procedure/reserved
word name and hitting F1 to see the help section for it. It was
wonderful for looking up the structure of a fu
19 matches
Mail list logo
