> 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
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.
is the compression level configureable somehow?
Regards, Andreas
Hello Andreas,
* Andreas Jellinghaus wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:37:13PM CEST:
> 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.
Well, does somebody have numbers (memory, t
Hello Pavel,
* Pavel Sanda wrote on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:22:06PM CEST:
> 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?
Bug, I guess
