From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jan 1 05:10:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA08471 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:10:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA08466 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:10:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca3-217.ix.netcom.com [209.109.233.217]) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA29263; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:09:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.8.8/8.6.9) id FAA11443; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:08:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:08:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901011308.FAA11443@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> To: kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au CC: ports@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: (message from Kris Kennaway on Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:36:31 +1030 (CST)) Subject: Re: Policy on bzip2? From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * From: Kris Kennaway * * Is there a policy on when it's good to use bzipped distfiles (which are * usually much smaller than their gzipped counterparts)? For those of us with * slow network links, the extra ~30% compression is extremely handy (not to * mention better for conserving bandwidth on the net generally). Lots of folks * are jumping on the bandwagon and providing their tars in bzipped form (as well * as gzipped), so this seems likely to only increase in the future. * * Are there any reasons NOT to use bzippped distfiles where they're available? Unless it is much slower for decompression (I believe it's only slower for compression), I don't see any. Having smaller distfiles will help us (ftp, CDROM) too. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message