> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> It was deliberate.
> For my use, xz -9 is far too slow for anything except the
> final "make dist" I run just prior to a release.
>
> For a release, I run this, via one of the
> alpha, beta or stable targets in gnulib's maint.mk:
&g
>> The same can be said about currently used -9 for lzma, no?
>
> Yes. The argument is that it should be possible to optionally set the
> compression level. In most cases, the compression default should be the
> tool's compression default.
I have no problem with such solution.
Pavel
> Are you assuming 'make dist' after 'make' or 'make dist' from scratch?
> Other than the time spent compressing data, 'make dist' after 'make'
> should be quite fast.
Yep, I mean the make dist from the scratch; i.e. what one usually
does when creating new release. The compression is used very r
> Well, does somebody have numbers (memory, time, compression) as to what
> is reasonable?
I didn't make any testing, but the report came from the observation
that result was +300kb on 9 mb. The compression was slow, but
decompression is not affected.
pavel
> isn't xz extremely slw with -9?
> maybe it wasn't a bug, bit intentionally not used,
> as that huge extra amount of time doesn't result in
> that many bytes saved.
Compared to the total time of make dist its IMHO
acceptable. But configurability won't hurt of course.
Pavel
Hi,
the newly added dist-xz target produce worse compressed archives
than lzma-dist. The reason is that automake call lzma with
best compression while it won't use -9 level for xz.
Is this intention or bug?
Pavel
