From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jan 24 5:57:57 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from trinity.skynet.be (trinity.skynet.be [195.238.2.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8654A15542 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:57:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by trinity.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3B61242C for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:52:49 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@foxbert.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200001241116.MAA41036@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> References: <200001241116.MAA41036@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:47:52 +0100 To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:16 PM +0100 2000/1/24, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Using bzip2 for the FreeBSD distribution sets would increase > the minimum memory requirement by 4 Mbyte (or about 2.5 Mbyte > using the -s option of bunzip2, but which doubles decompression > time). I really don't see what everyone is getting all worked up about. Okay, we believe that bzip2 is probably going to be somewhat better at compressing the ports tarballs (and presumably other tarballs), but it takes longer to run (both to compress and uncompress?), and presumably requires both more memory and more CPU. But gzip is the established standard, and of all the vendors I know of, only Sun is stupid enough to ship an OS that doesn't have gzip installed on their base system. It's certainly the most backwards compatible, and likely to be the best solution for an install floppy or for running on an older machine. Can't we do both? Use gzip on the install floppy, but include bzip2 in /usr/src, and make sure that all the various programs that deal with tarballs and gzip'ed tarballs can also deal with bzip2 tarballs (including in the ports system)? I mean, if it's in /usr/src, and we have both gzip & bzip2 installed on the system, it's up to the user to choose which they prefer and use most of the time, right? And the only cost is the slight expansion of the amount of disk space required to store the source code in /usr/src and the binaries in /usr/bin, as opposed to most people having the port for it installed, with the binaries resident in /usr/local/bin? This can be a win-win situation, can't it? -- These are my opinions and should not be taken as official Skynet policy _________________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/726.93.11 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message