Hi Kalman, On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 15:15 +0100, Kálmán „KAMI” Szalai wrote: > I am sure we can shrink the installer more with better compression
Hah - so, of course Fridrich and Tor have looked into this - and naturally you are right :-) there is a lot we can do. Clearly compressing things badly first, and then well later (eg. zip, then lzma) doesn't give the best results. That is particularly so when there are lots of similarities in the eg. un-compressed ODF files we have internally for eg. templates but minor differences that will have hard-to-compress knock-on-effects in the compressed stream. The ideal would be to use only one level of compression - using the best algorithm (LZMA) ie. NSIS, and nothing in the .cab file (which is limited to various lame algorithms, and perhaps per-contained-file compression, rather than per-whole-cab-file). Unfortunately, with the currently level of eg. template duplication, this would give us a vast .cab file that would chew lots of space on the target machine - though it might shrink our download nicely :-) > What is your opinion? Can somebody test it on a real Windows build > system? The current balance is based on testing; quite possibly there is a better set of compression options - but we need to work out what it is. Our current settings are optimised for a multi-lang install as we ship it. To change that I'd like to see a table: New options Download/kb Install/kb with the relevant sizes of both of these guys. That is just a matter of running lots of long builds and comparing the output I guess, and I suspect we will get something like a trade-off between these two values. Clearly, the 'real' solution is engineering to stop us having so much pointless duplication ;-) HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice