Am 02.04.2014 20:29, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On 02/04/2014 18:48, fruktopus wrote:
>> Am 02.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>>> On 02/04/2014 14:27, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
>>>> I was reviewing my Portage settings yesterday and I noticed that I have
>>>> PORTAGE_COMPRESS set (to bzip2, the default) on both of my servers and
>>>> it occurred to me that both of these servers have filesystems that
>>>> support compression (btrfs on one, zfs on the other). So I'm wondering
>>>> if it still makes sense to have PORTAGE_COMPRESS set or if I should
>>>> unset it and just let the fs-level compression handle it. Portage is
>>>> already slow, why have it take the time to do this when the fs does it
>>>> better and transparently? Thoughts on the matter?
>>> I agree with your reasoning.
>>>
>>> PORTAGE_COMPRESS is an ugly hack to get doc files smaller and the need
>>> for it has long since gone away for the general case and it predates
>>> filesystems with compression anyway. So do let the fs deal with this
>>> transparently and avoid the cost of calling bunzip2 everytime you read a
>>> doc.
>> Where did you find PORTAGE_COMPRESS? I just checked /etc/portage and
>> some other locations but without luck. Also its not documented. Can you
>> give me a hint.
> man 5 make.conf
>
Thank you.
