From owner-cvs-ports  Wed Oct  4 21:55:53 1995
Return-Path: owner-cvs-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id VAA19172
          for cvs-ports-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 21:55:53 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA19166
          ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 21:55:42 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.9) id VAA07443; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 21:55:27 -0700
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 21:55:27 -0700
Message-Id: <199510050455.VAA07443@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
CC: CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199510042159.WAA04502@uriah.heep.sax.de> (message from J Wunsch on Wed, 4 Oct 1995 22:59:24 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/cflow/patches patch-aa
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * >   "gzip --best" -> "gzip -9nf" for manpage compression.  Otherwise it
 * >   will ask if you want to overwrite it if the compressed manpage already
 * >   exists.
 * 
 * I thought we won't use "gzip -9" any more?

Joerg, there are so many ports out there with gzip -9 in there, and
now is not the time to go fix all of them. :>

Besides, I don't think any conclusion came out of the discussion a
while ago.  However, if you ask me, I'd rather keep the -9 in there
(or whatever the "best" compression is, in terms of compression ratio,
regardless of speed).  I think most of our users out there use binary
packages, so the extra time we pay, will save space for thousands of
them. :)

Satoshi