Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 17:09:57 +1000 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: bzip2(1) compression for manpages, Groff and Texinfo docs Message-ID: <20030502170957.A73477@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20030502063200.GC12809@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, May 02, 2003 at 09:32:00AM %2B0300 References: <20030502011307.GA82420@sunbay.com> <20030502153334.A70914@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20030502063200.GC12809@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 09:32:00AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:33:34PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote: > > On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 04:13:07AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > > This is just an announcement that I'm going to add bzip2(1) > > > support to man(1) and makewhatis(1) (catman(1) already has > > > it), and then switch the default compression method from > > > gzip(1) to bzip2(1), for manpages, Groff and Texinfo docs. > > > (The latest 4.5 texinfo supports bzip2.) > > > > I don't mean to sound rude, but what is the justification for this? > > > Sorry to be sounding obvious, but what other use other than > better compression one should expect from a compression tool? Here are the total compressed sizes for all the section 1 manual pages in src/usr.bin: compress: 670776 bytes, 1.33 * gzip size gzip: 504723 bytes, 1.00 * gzip size gzip -9: 504441 bytes, 1.00 * gzip size bzip2: 494974 bytes, 0.98 * gzip size bzip2 -9: 494974 bytes, 0.98 * gzip size It does not look like bzip2 compresses the manual pages well enough to bother replacing gzip, especially considering the relative speeds of the two and the backwards compatibility issues. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030502170957.A73477>