William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> William, I'd be interested in what this does for you in practical terms.
>
> In practicality, lzma and lzma2 has better compression than gzip or
> bzip2, and the script needs to be updated.

You are not quantifying the differences in compression.  AFAIK, the 
script works now and it appears your changes are an optimization.

> lzma and lzma2 have the best decompression times and best compression
> ratios (hence seeing lzma2 compressed source tarballs on GNU servers),
> and compression may take a bit longer, if we are going to include the
> compressdoc in BLFS, then keep it updated. If there is no practical use
> for the script then remove it from BLFS. If it's there, then it should
> be updated. In the mean time, I will have my updates available to the
> community of them to use and manipulate as they wish.
>
> The script compresses man pages and info files, may as well add xz to it
> since man or man db and texinfo can use lzma and lzma2. Practicality is
> not the issue.
> As long as it is in the book, it should be maintained.

Minimal maintenance (fixing broken things) is not the same as optimizing.

I have considered removing compressdoc because I think it pretty much 
useless, but since it works, it's more effort to remove it than to just 
leave it.  Admittedly removing it would only require removing one line 
from the xml.

Armin, Randy, Ken, what do you think?

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to