On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 04:50:27AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >Hi, > >Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> (2016-07-06): >> I'd like consider switching dpkg-deb --uniform-compression by default, >> so that both control.tar and data.tar members use the same >> compression, which currently would be xz (or gzip with -Zgzip). > >(AFAICT 'none' is still supported, contrary to 'bzip2' and 'lzma'). > >That wouldn't seem crazy to me. > >> This would give us more uniform and smaller packages. I think the d-i >> people wanted something like this (?). > >[ Adding debian-boot@, where “the d-i people” are, and debian-cd@ for > completeness. ] > >A few years ago we pushed for xz compression in some key packages to try >and squeeze more packages into installation images, notably CD#1; ISTR >that would only change the data part and not the control one, which >would limit the size gain for some specific packages. debian-cd only >generates netinst CDs nowadays so that's no longer a hot topic for us >AFAIK.
Almost - after some pleas we've added back a CD-only build for Xfce too. But that's not massively relevant here I think. :-) >> Not all .deb parsers support control.tar.xz yet, but most do: >> <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/DebSupport> > >udpkg's status there seems correct (supports gz/xz/no compression), and >just to be sure: I've just checked that compression_type is indeed >handled independently for control (in udpkg.c's dpkg_unpackcontrol) and >for data (dpkg_dounpack). > >> Would there be any objections to this? > >Bottom-line from a d-i point of view: having both compression in sync by >default shouldn't change anything on our side (shouldn't gain us much >but shouldn't do much harm either). Agreed. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
