On 16/08/11 00:10, Carsten Hey wrote: > bzip2 has a better compression on average for some filetypes, xz[1] has > a better compression on average for others: > > gzip bzip2 xz bzip2+xz[3] > text files[2] 94312922 73496587 77783076 73496587 > other files 16577181 14609893 14275484 14275484 > sum 110890103 88106480 92058560 87772071 > > Among the "other files" are also a lot of text files, if we would > compress Debian packages instead, xz would win presumably. > > Anyway, I don't think this difference of 4 MiB on a desktop system is > significant. > > > I would prefer to avoid bloating the set of pseudo essential packages > without a good reason and I think users should be able to decompress all > files in /u/s/d. There are plans to let dpkg depend on liblzma2 instead > of xz and it already depends on libbz2-1.0. If dpkg's dependency on > libbz2 is planned to be removed in future, I would prefer to let libbz2 > vanish from the pseudo essential set and use xz also for /u/s/d, > otherwise I would prefer using bzip2 over xz for /u/s/d.
One advantage of gzip /usr/share/doc is that when served by an appropriately configured web server .gz files will be transparently decompressed and displayed by most web browsers. I believe Policy requires Debian web servers to make /u/s/d available at http://localhost/doc/. While this obviously isn't an overriding consideration it is a nice easy way to browse the documentation. Can same be done for any other compression formats? Roger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7e7rh8-j14....@silverstone.rilynn.me.uk