From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 23 2:16: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [210.234.123.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB2A14CA2 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 02:16:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from musha@ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp) Received: from daemon.local.idaemons.org (pc062018.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [210.155.62.18]) by ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (8.9.1/3.7W 06/01/99) with ESMTP id TAA17312 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:15:59 +0900 (JST) Received: by daemon.local.idaemons.org (8.9.3/3.7W) id TAA80898; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:15:27 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:15:26 +0900 Message-ID: <86u2k5ytz5.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> From: Akinori MUSHA aka knu To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches) In-Reply-To: In your message of "Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:48 +0100 (CET)" <200001230926.KAA81850@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> References: <86duop$2n8d$1@atlantis.rz.tu-clausthal.de> <200001230926.KAA81850@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.2.15 (More Than Words) EMIKO/1.13.9 (Euglena tripteris) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) APEL/10.1 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 8) (Bryce Canyon) (i386--freebsd) Organization: A.I.D. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by EMIKO 1.13.9 - "Euglena tripteris") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:48 +0100 (CET), Oliver Fromme wrote: > I don't like bzip2 for the sole fact that it takes _ages_ to > compress files, compared to gzip. Saving 10% or 20% on disk > space is not worth wasting >= 10 times more CPU time than gzip. > Disk space is cheap nowadays, but upgrading to a CPU that is > 10 times faster is not. But when one compresses a file with bzip2 and prepare a smaller distribution, hundreds of people can save their download time. That's why we compress things. I'd focus on the receivers' side. Of course a necessary manner is preparing also a gzip'ed file for those who prefer gzip's less memory usage rather than bzip2's higher compression. And still, a standard is a standard. > (I once tried to compress our FreeBSD ISO images with bzip2, > just to compare the space savings with gzip. I aborted the > experiment after 6 hours (!). gzip took about 30 minutes. > Consequently, bzip2 was considered unusable and went into the > trash can.) Not everyone wants/needs to compress such a big stuff with bzip2 to waste time. But having bzip2/bunzip2 gives us an option. > I'd vote for keeping things as they are: bzip2 is fine as > a port. Despite all of above, I have to agree that, since whether having bzip2 is already an option thanks to the port. :) -- / /__ __ / ) ) ) ) / http://www.idaemons.org/knu/ Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( mailto:knu@idaemons.org "We are but hungry.. Associated Ita-meshi Daemons!" http://www.idaemons.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message