Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/lame Makefile Message-ID: <20040321125347.U93457@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpekrml5dy.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200403201452.i2KEqJ9b039309@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040321042730.V93457@blues.jpj.net> <xzpekrml5dy.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Smørgrav wrote: > Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> writes: > > BTW if we were shielded from patent lawsuits we could distribute > > bzip-compressed packages and save a fair bit of space (see > > ports/archivers/bzip). > > Umm, why? We already use bzip2, which provides better compression > than bzip and is unencumbered. I'm not sure what you mean by "better compression", but as I said, bzip produces smaller output: 839680 calgary-corpus-bzip.tar 849920 calgary-corpus-bzip2.tar 542720 canterbury-corpus-bzip.tar 552960 canterbury-corpus-bzip2.tar 2570240 large-canterbury-corpus-bzip.tar 2590720 large-canterbury-corpus-bzip2.tar 3000320 protein-corpus-bzip.tar 3010560 protein-corpus-bzip2.tar I agree that bzip2 is better though. :) -- Trevor Johnson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040321125347.U93457>