On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 04:51:53PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote: > Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > > Thus spake Sergey I. Golod ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > > Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file? > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2 > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz > > > It's about 25% can be saved in download. > > > > Yeah, but I guess it would take about twice the time to unpack. Please > > don't do that to my poor 486 :-(( > > But extra size = extra traffic = extra money, that's worse. Unpack no cost at > all > (except you time, ofcourse). > > wbr, Serge. > > p.s. If Debian change default compression to bzip2 in future, we can save > about > ~20-25% in size of distribution. It especially important to reduce network > traffic in update&upgrade operations.
Now, we cannot save that much. Your example of compressing pure text is not a measure of this whole archive. I've tested it, and converted an entire local binary-sparc/main tree to internal bzip2 compression. It saved a grand total of 197 megs from 1.5gigs. Roughly 15% at a quick guess. This wouldn't even drop us down a single CD. We have new things in the upcoming dpkg, one of those being to support bzip2 in the package format. However, I don't see it being used in Debian's archives right away. -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]