> > > > Speed reasons - gzip is significantly faster than bzip2, which matters > > > > for old ix86 (x=3,4) and m68k machines which run Debian. > > > > > > bzip2 also uses more memory which can be an issue with lowmemory > > > systems. > > > > I had a 486 with 8Mb and with `bzip2 -s' I could use bzipped packages > > perfectly... are we talking about 4 Mb mechines? > Do you realize how much ram dpkg itself already takes up? Add that to > bzip2 and you are definitely swapping, even with 8 megs of RAM. Heck, > doing this, and you need 16megs *free* physical memory just to keep from > swapping. As for 4 meg machines, the current gzip setup is almost > unbearable just for that (believe me, I have an 8 meg system, and I don't > want to even imagine a 4 meg system trying to handle dpkg, much less > dpkg+bzip2).
Uhm.. you are right. But it could still be used for Packages.gz and for the source package. Many packages are now being packaged in bz2 upstream (eg. lftp, one of mine)... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]