My totally un-scientific test says that for the current
"fpc-2.0.2.i386-linux.tar" archive, using bzip2 instead
of gzip, it would take about one minute longer to create
the archive, and shave about 4 MB off the size.
That would cut about 15 minutes off the download time
for most 56k dial-up users
On 5/25/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tend also to agree. Does anybody know something newer than Woody
coming without bzip2 by default?
DamnSmallLinux
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.fre
Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2006, at 12:43, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>>> What do you think about having two archives, to make everyone happy :
>>> one compressed with gzip ( for those concerned about compatibility)
>>> and one compressed with bzip2 (for those concerned about the size) ?
>
On 25 May 2006, at 12:43, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
What do you think about having two archives, to make everyone
happy :
one compressed with gzip ( for those concerned about compatibility)
and one compressed with bzip2 (for those concerned about the size) ?
Extra work for us :) We're alrea
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Adrian Maier wrote:
>> On 25/05/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>>> >> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>>> >
>>> > I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
>>> > greater than
Adrian Maier wrote:
> On 25/05/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>> >> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>> >
>> > I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
>> > greater than the size of downloading and ins
On 25/05/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>
> I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
> greater than the size of downloading and installing a bzip2 extractor.
Yes, bu
> Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
> >> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
> >
> > I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
> > greater than the size of downloading and installing a bzip2 extractor.
>
> Yes, but it requires extra work :)
Just a side rem
Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>
> I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
> greater than the size of downloading and installing a bzip2 extractor.
Yes, but it requires extra work :)
__
Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
greater than the size of downloading and installing a bzip2 extractor.
- Jeff
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lis
10 matches
Mail list logo
