On Feb 24, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Baho Utot wrote:
Don't you mean file suffix?
According to "Unix rules for file names" the period is just another
character in the file spec.
I am under the impression that unix or unix like systems don't have
file extensions, I do know
# Decompress with given
On 02/24/2013 09:36 AM, William Harrington wrote:
On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Armin K. wrote:
First of all, script is broken.
Any man page that contains ".so whatever.num" when the "whatever.num" is
compressed is broken after compression.
I don't have that behavior and I have man pages wit
On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Armin K. wrote:
First of all, script is broken.
Any man page that contains ".so whatever.num" when the
"whatever.num" is
compressed is broken after compression.
I don't have that behavior and I have man pages with that particular
style:
modules.dep.5.xz m
On 02/24/2013 02:38 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> William Harrington wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> William, I'd be interested in what this does for you in practical terms.
>>
>> In practicality, lzma and lzma2 has better compression than gzip or
>> bzip2, and the sc
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 09:37:51PM -0600, William Harrington wrote:
>
> Why was compressdoc included to begin with? I ran man
> between gzip or xz compresed files and noticed no difference
> (humanly) between opening of the files. A render isn't done, it's a
> decompression.
man-db (or man) is
On Feb 23, 2013, at 9:42 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hopefully, you didn't construe my comments as an "attack". I simply
do not
have any need for the compressdoc script. I can't offer any input as
to
"fix any errors", as I do not use it, nor have the desire to test it.
I didn't. All is well
William Harrington wrote these words on 02/23/13 21:37 CST:
> "This is a rough draft but any input is greatly appreciated to fix any
> errors."
>
> In which none have fixed errors if they are there, only attacked the
> issue that the script has been updated. If I wanted to fix the book
> I'd p
On Feb 23, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
But I think that the savings from stripping files are considerably
greater, and I'm unconvinced that .xz *de*compression is particularly
fast (from memory, sitting waiting for a manpage to render can be
extremely annoying).
Why was compressdoc in
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 19:38 CST:
> Armin, Randy, Ken, what do you think?
I do not use it. Perhaps some folks do, though. Can't hurt to update it with
Williams patch and keep it in the book. Bottom line is I really don't care
either way.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 07:38:05PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Minimal maintenance (fixing broken things) is not the same as optimizing.
>
> I have considered removing compressdoc because I think it pretty much
> useless, but since it works, it's more effort to remove it than to just
> leave
William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> You are not quantifying the differences in compression. AFAIK, the
>> script works now and it appears your changes are an optimization.
>
> xz -l LFS-Experimental-x86_64-Graphite.tar.xz
> Strms Blocks Compresse
On Feb 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
You are not quantifying the differences in compression. AFAIK, the
script works now and it appears your changes are an optimization.
xz -l LFS-Experimental-x86_64-Graphite.tar.xz
Strms Blocks Compressed Uncompressed Ratio Check Filename
On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
How much space does this save and is that enough to
bother with?
Read the patch, that info is in there.
+ By William Harrington - With a Sun Ultra 60 system using ext4, the
original
+ size for a default clfs dev install was 49048KB before com
William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> William, I'd be interested in what this does for you in practical terms.
>
> In practicality, lzma and lzma2 has better compression than gzip or
> bzip2, and the script needs to be updated.
You are not quantifying t
On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
William, I'd be interested in what this does for you in practical
terms.
In practicality, lzma and lzma2 has better compression than gzip or
bzip2, and the script needs to be updated.
lzma and lzma2 have the best decompression times and bes
William Harrington wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I've been working on updating the compressdoc script to include xz
> support.
William, I'd be interested in what this does for you in practical terms.
On my system, all of the uncompressed man pages are 88M. All my info
pages are 53M. How much
Hello everybody,
I've been working on updating the compressdoc script to include xz
support.
Since I deal mostly with CLFS, and we aren't using man_db at the
moment, I've added a section for if man_db isn't on the host to use man.
This is a rough draft but any input is greatly appreciated to
17 matches
Mail list logo
