On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:31:10 -0500 jhell <jh...@dataix.net> wrote: > On 11/29/2010 06:24, Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 28.11.2010 22:12, schrieb Goran Tal: > >> Now that the base system supports xz compression, it should be > >> used as the default compression for packages. > >> > >> Files compressed with xz are smaller and decompress faster than > >> those compressed with bzip2. This can make an installation much > >> quicker, especially when the complete system is installed or > >> upgraded. > >> > >> Any reasons against it? > > > > xz compressed files can take up CONSIDERABLY more memory to > > decompress than files compressed with bzip2 or gzip. Keep that in > > mind so that systems that are low on memory can still decompress xz > > packages. If you don't fit into RAM for decompression, it will be > > unusable. > > Adding to this, as the manual says... The decompressing host will need > to have at minimal 5% -> 20% of memory 'available' for decompression > of what the compressing host had. Seeing as FreeBSD still runs on > systems with memory as little as 200MB "~20% of 1024MB" and quite > possible to run on systems with memory of 64MB "~5% of 1024MB" I > would not see any benefit in modifying the default memory limit on a > compressing host to accommodate for these system rather than using > gzip(1) or bzip2(1) by default. > > It would be nice to support xz(1) compression for large selective > packages like firefox or openoffice as those will never run on smaller > systems.
Trouble is it ain't no way (CPU, space, banhdwidth on our side and space,bandwidth on our mirrors side) we could build a double set of packages. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
