Arsen Arsenović <[email protected]> writes: > Philip Kaludercic <[email protected]> writes: > >>>> We'd also prefer a more common format, e.g. xz instead of lzip (which >>>> isn't supported by our standard unpacker), but this is a minor issue. >> >> This might also be difficult due to storage issues. > > Here's a comparison of disk space usage of all latest packages from ELPA > compressed by xz -9 and lzip -9 (note that xz was also significantly > faster): > > /tmp/h$ du -s xz lzip > 69460 xz > 69168 lzip
I was not implying that either compression algorithm is significantly better, but that we would likely not get rid of the .lz archives all at once, and hence would have to store both for a while. But considering that the server has 17 GB of free storage as of now (I hope this is not a fact that someone can abuse?), I guess it should be doable.
