Hi,
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 10:14 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
Pacman itself is ready for .tar.bz2 package files. The whole issue
with .bz2 files is that compression and decompression times increase a
lot without giving the same amount of size reduction back. We've done
some recent tests with
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't this problem be circumvented by spawning the lzma command line
utility, and piping all data to it? I understand that this perhaps
negates the purpose of libarchive, but the overhead should be small.
That
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 18:47 +0300, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 10:14 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
Pacman itself is ready for .tar.bz2 package files. The whole issue
with .bz2 files is that compression and decompression times increase a
lot without giving the same
Aaron Griffin wrote:
That's actually not entirely true. Dan and I investigated this. The
previous low memory issues were caused by the entire install system
never leaving the initramfs, and remaining entirely in RAM - which
soaked far more than pacman ever will. Additionally, with the dynamic
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 19:39 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
What's the memory usage when unzipping an LZMA file? Is it much higher
than the needs of gzip? We already have problems supporting low-memory
systems with our installer, adding a compression algorithm that eats
more memory will cause
On Thursday 22 May 2008 00:13:27 Tobias Kieslich wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Denis Alessandro Altoe Falqueto wrote:
It seems that LZMA lib is licensed with LGPL and has an special
exception that permits to link (statically or dinamicaly) without
being bound by the LGPL terms.
I thought
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes you are allowed to link dynamicly, now read if you are allowed to run the
linked program. Not speaking of actually distributing it.
Strange, why would it be allowed to link and not to run the linked
program? It
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 15:55 +0900, Bendany Qian wrote:
Hi all
I just have a sugguestion about the pkg format.
Currently archlinux is using gzip compress method to pack the
package, I think it is better to use bzip2. since bzip2 format
can save about 10%-20% disk space than gzip.
As I
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Jan de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pacman itself is ready for .tar.bz2 package files. The whole issue
with .bz2 files is that compression and decompression times increase a
lot without giving the same amount of size reduction back. We've done
some recent
Idézés Jan de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 15:55 +0900, Bendany Qian wrote:
Hi all
I just have a sugguestion about the pkg format.
Currently archlinux is using gzip compress method to pack the
package, I think it is better to use bzip2. since bzip2 format
can
10 matches
Mail list logo
