On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 18:33 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 17:51 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > I'm wondering here, how much sense does it make to compress 2., 3. > > > and/or 4. if you compress the whole gpkg? I have the impression > > > compression on compression isn't beneficial here. Shouldn't just > > > compressing of the gpkg tar be sufficient? > > Please read the spec again. It explicitly says it's not compressed. > > Isn't that the wrong way around? The tar format contains a lot of > padding, so using uncompressed tar for the outer archive would be > somewhat wasteful. Why not leave the inner tar files uncompressed, but > compress the whole binpkg instead?
Uncompressed tar is mostly suitable for random access. Compressed tar isn't suitable for random access at all. With uncompressed tar, it's trivial to access one of the members. With compressed tar, you always end up decompressing everything. With uncompressed tar, it's easy to rewrite the metadata (read: apply package updates) without updating the rest. With compressed tar, you'd have to recompress all the huge packages in order to apply updates. > Also, what would be wrong with ar? It's a standard POSIX tool, and > should be available everywhere. > The original post says what's wrong with ar. Please be more specific if you disagree with it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
