From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 22 14: 4:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [210.234.123.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98F914EB7; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:04:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from musha@ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp) Received: from daemon.local.idaemons.org (pc062018.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [210.155.62.18]) by ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (8.9.1/3.7W 06/01/99) with ESMTP id HAA13382; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:03:52 +0900 (JST) Received: by daemon.local.idaemons.org (8.9.3/3.7W) id HAA53227; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:03:20 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:03:19 +0900 Message-ID: <86r9f9lq6w.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> From: Akinori MUSHA aka knu To: chuckr@picnic.mat.net Cc: andrews@technologist.com, shige@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches) In-Reply-To: In your message of "Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:42:55 -0500 (EST)" References: <20000122123109.E59732@shadow.blackdawn.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.2.15 (More Than Words) EMIKO/1.13.9 (Euglena tripteris) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) APEL/10.1 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 8) (Bryce Canyon) (i386--freebsd) Organization: A.I.D. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by EMIKO 1.13.9 - "Euglena tripteris") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:42:55 -0500 (EST), Chuck Robey wrote: > A case would have to be built that bzip2 does something critical that > cannot be done without bzip2. Else, it stays as a fine port. Heck, emacs > is a fine port too, but it'll never get into the base system. Hmm... seems NetBSD folks already have bzip2 in their source tree, while OpenBSD folks not. Then how about us? IMHO, bzip2 tarballs are increasing in number out there because each software is growing bigger and bigger nowadays, and thus in great demand is the better compression: i.e. bzip2 rather than gzip. I don't think we should compress everything with bzip2 instead of gzip, however, I believe we'd better have bunzip2 by default as there are many software which both *.gz and *.bz2 are provided for download, such as Lynx, WindowMaker, GIMP, KDE and Linux kernel. Yes, they are pretty big enough to see the difference between two... .tar.bz2 .tar.gz lynx2.8.2rel1 1.4MB 1.8MB WindowMaeker 0.61.1 1.6MB 1.9MB gimp-1.1.13 6.2MB 8.0MB kdebase-1.1.2 7.0MB 8.9MB linux-2.2.14 12.3MB 15.2MB It's crystal clear bzip2 wins in these cases. and far enough. -- / /__ __ / ) ) ) ) / http://www.idaemons.org/knu/ Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( mailto:knu@idaemons.org "We are but hungry.. Associated Ita-meshi Daemons!" http://www.idaemons.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message