On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:15:40PM +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 14:14 +0000, Michael Schroeder wrote: > > Hi Jonathan! > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 08:52:23PM +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > > So here's my proposed file format for the zchunk file. Should I > > > add > > > some flags to facilitate possible different compression formats? > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+==================+=================+ > > > > ID | Index size | Compressed Index | Compressed Dict | > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+==================+=================+ > > > > > > +===========+===========+ > > > > Chunk | Chunk | ==> More chunks > > > > > > +===========+===========+ > > > [...] > > > > This may be an unfair question, but how does it compare to the > > 'gzip --rsyncable' + zsync approach that we (openSUSE) are > > using since almost eight years? I guess it's better, but how much? > > > > Cheers, > > Michael. > > I've run some tests with zsync (since it's not in Fedora, I rebuilt the > latest Tumbleweed source rpm), but ran into problems (which is probably > unsurprising, given that upstream hasn't released an update in eight > years).
Oh, I didn't propose to use the zsync tool itself, but just the file format. I.e. --rsyncable compressed files that are accompanied by .zsync files. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} _______________________________________________ Rpm-ecosystem mailing list Rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem