From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Dec 29 18:06:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA15129 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:06:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.36.247]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA15120 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:06:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au) Received: from bragg (bragg [129.127.36.34]) by adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8/UofA-1.5) with SMTP id MAA14306 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:36:31 +1030 (CST) Received: from localhost by bragg; (5.65/1.1.8.2/05Aug95-0227PM) id AA32410; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:36:31 +1030 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:36:31 +1030 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway X-Sender: kkennawa@bragg To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Policy on bzip2? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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? Kris ----- (ASP) Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) announced today that the release of its productivity suite, Office 2000, will be delayed until the first quarter of 1901. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message