James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
> > appropriate, though?
>
> By recompressing things in bzip2, you lose the ability to use pristine
> upstream source (since the vast majority of source stills comes in
> .tar.gz form).
Upstream authors might choose to release upstream source compressed by
bzip2. So bzip2 compression should be a valid option for source
archives.
IMHO the "pristine" property is more importent than the compression
ratio. If a choice between pristine gzipped and re-compressed bzip2ed
has to be made, I'd vote for the pristine way.
We already could pack the diffs with bzip2. In order to avoid a long
debate I computed the space savings (for hamm/main):
(in KBytes)
gzipped: 17208
uncompressed: 76953
bzip2ed: 14911
IMHO *this* space saving doesn't suggest to use bzip2 for diff2.
Sven
--
Sven Rudolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.sax.de/~sr1/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
