From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Jul 24 16:29:07 1995 Return-Path: ports-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id QAA23349 for ports-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 1995 16:29:07 -0700 Received: from forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.75]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA23335 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 1995 16:29:05 -0700 Received: (from asami@localhost) by forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA00806; Mon, 24 Jul 1995 16:27:44 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 16:27:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199507242327.QAA00806@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: knarf@nasim.cube.net CC: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <3v11tt$ik@nasim.nasim.cube.net> (knarf@nasim.cube.net) Subject: Re: diffs and checksums From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: ports-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk * > I mean we put tarfiles that have been znew --best'd on wcarchive, and * > every mirror site will pick them up. So the CPU is used only on one * > site (probably thud), and all the mirror sites can save space. How's * > that now? :) * * Yes, but every machine who wants to build the port will need more CPU * time also. Um, why is that? If anything, gzip --best'ed files uncompress slightly *faster* than their gzip --fast'ed files. For instance: >> time gzip --fast XMAIL ; lg XMAIL.gz; time gunzip XMAIL 6.30 real 4.48 user 0.42 sys 928 -rw------- 1 asami grad 940979 Jul 24 14:00 XMAIL.gz 2.92 real 1.54 user 0.52 sys >> time gzip --best XMAIL ; lg XMAIL.gz; time gunzip XMAIL 15.66 real 11.63 user 0.31 sys 768 -rw------- 1 asami grad 778181 Jul 24 14:00 XMAIL.gz 2.60 real 1.44 user 0.43 sys Maybe it's due to the smaller file size. For people who want to do znew --best by themselves to save disk space...I'll add a variable to bsd.port.mk that will enable znew --best when set as part of the fetch target, with a logic like: fetch file if ZNEW_BEST is set test the fetched file against znew --best version of md5 if not equal do znew --best fi fi Comments? * > The only reasonable solution to this I can think of is to include a * > md5 for the original (compressed) tarball and the znew --best version, * > and let bsd.port.mk test both of them before complaining. This should * > salvage mirror sites that do a recompression (assuming they are doing * > znew --best...if they aren't, to hell to them! ;). * * Will you implement it then? Yes, unless someone has a better idea. You'll have to wait a few days though, bsd.port.mk has a huge pending update (re: the mail I sent out last night), and I don't want to mess with it now. Satoshi