Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 01/17/2017 12:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote: [sent off list to reduce amount of spam] Please cease this off-topic. It has nothing to do with the subject debated. If you want to talk over a beer, then please go to a pub. If you want to compare your pe^w^w^w embedded systems, then please find an

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 01/17/2017 01:05 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: On 01/13/2017 08:06 AM, james wrote: On 01/13/2017 02:45 AM, Sven Eden wrote: Btw.: Even "embedded experts" wholeheartedly agree that they disagree what "embedded" actually is. But I do think SoCs actually *do* qualify, at least to some degree...

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 16-01-2017 22:13:39 -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 01/10/2017 05:16 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 09-01-2017 09:08:22 +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > >> The particular problem I am having is that http://mdocml.bsd.lv/ , > >> my manpage formatter of choice, does deliberately not support bzip >

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 01/10/2017 05:16 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 09-01-2017 09:08:22 +0100, Jan Stary wrote: >> The particular problem I am having is that http://mdocml.bsd.lv/ , >> my manpage formatter of choice, does deliberately not support bzip >> (or any other outside decompressors for that matter). > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 01/13/2017 08:06 AM, james wrote: > On 01/13/2017 02:45 AM, Sven Eden wrote: > >> Btw.: Even "embedded experts" wholeheartedly agree that they disagree >> what >> "embedded" actually is. But I do think SoCs actually *do* qualify, at >> least to >> some degree... > > > Huh? > > Probably who

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:06:47 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > > the manpage formatter needs to call > > external unpackers. All this to save 40M. I honestly don't think > > it's worth it. > > Calling external tools in a pipeline is a pretty normal solution > in the *nix world.

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Jan 10 14:16:47, grob...@gentoo.org wrote: > On 09-01-2017 09:08:22 +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > The particular problem I am having is that http://mdocml.bsd.lv/ , > > my manpage formatter of choice, does deliberately not support bzip > > (or any other outside decompressors for that matter). >

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:05:58 +0100 Jan Stary wrote: > I am not really familiar eith this system - what would be > the right piece of information that does relate tot this? Nothing really, because Gentoo doesn't have "a version", its a rolling release model. The closest

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 01/13/2017 02:45 AM, Sven Eden wrote: Btw.: Even "embedded experts" wholeheartedly agree that they disagree what "embedded" actually is. But I do think SoCs actually *do* qualify, at least to some degree... Huh? Probably who you deem as an expert; they have not clearly defined systems

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017, 19:08:05 CET schrieb Walter Dnes: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:15:25PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote > > > On Jan 11 13:34:09, sven.e...@gmx.de wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 13:36:15 CET schrieb Jan Stary: > > > > > You arguing that 40MB is nothing on modern

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:15:25PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote > On Jan 11 13:34:09, sven.e...@gmx.de wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 13:36:15 CET schrieb Jan Stary: > > > > You arguing that 40MB is nothing on modern systems (which, by the way is > > > > not exactly true, talking about

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Jan 11 13:34:09, sven.e...@gmx.de wrote: > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 13:36:15 CET schrieb Jan Stary: > > > You arguing that 40MB is nothing on modern systems (which, by the way is > > > not exactly true, talking about embedded ones). > > > > Can you gove an example of an embedded system

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 01/10/2017 06:54 AM, Jan Stary wrote: > > These are workarounds. Let me get back to the original question: > would you please consider having _uncompressed_ manpages as the default? > > On this particular system, the bzipped /usr/share/man/ is 67M. > The uncompressed man/ is 108M. That's 40M

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 13:36:15 CET schrieb Jan Stary: > > You arguing that 40MB is nothing on modern systems (which, by the way is > > not exactly true, talking about embedded ones). > > Can you gove an example of an embedded system with manpages? My Raspberry Pi 3. ;-) Cheers Sven

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:01:15 +0200 Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, T, 10.01.2017 kell 19:19, kirjutas Vadim A. Misbakh- > Soloviov: > > that will  > > affect tons of users (which are happy with current "defaults") > > because yours  > > only own local problems (not

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:54:21 +0100 Jan Stary wrote: > On Jan 09 09:30:11, ike...@gentoo.org wrote: > > Hiya Jan, > > > > The following snippet from Ingo is correct: > > > > > So, you want to hear something constructive? Your best option is to > > > just decompress that stuff

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

Ühel kenal päeval, T, 10.01.2017 kell 14:39, kirjutas Ulrich Mueller: > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > Yes, the default should be changed for everyone. > > To PORTAGE_COMPRESS="xz". > > Back in 2013, vapier had made extensive studies of compression tools > for man pages

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Yes, the default should be changed for everyone. > To PORTAGE_COMPRESS="xz". Back in 2013, vapier had made extensive studies of compression tools for man pages and documentation, and the conclusion was that bzip2 gives the best overall

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On 09-01-2017 09:08:22 +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > The particular problem I am having is that http://mdocml.bsd.lv/ , > my manpage formatter of choice, does deliberately not support bzip > (or any other outside decompressors for that matter). Attached patch works for me. XZ should be a similar

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

Ühel kenal päeval, T, 10.01.2017 kell 19:19, kirjutas Vadim A. Misbakh- Soloviov: > that will  > affect tons of users (which are happy with current "defaults") > because yours  > only own local problems (not having root access on the system)? Yes, the default should be changed for everyone. To

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Jan 10 19:19:03, gen...@mva.name wrote: > В письме от вторник, 10 января 2017 г. 13:08:14 +07 пользователь Jan Stary > написал: > > On Jan 10 19:04:47, gen...@mva.name wrote: > > > > There is an option to support; the packages need to be reinstalled > > > > or there are untracked files; the

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

В письме от вторник, 10 января 2017 г. 13:08:14 +07 пользователь Jan Stary написал: > On Jan 10 19:04:47, gen...@mva.name wrote: > > > There is an option to support; the packages need to be reinstalled > > > or there are untracked files; the manpage formatter needs to call > > > external

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Jan 10 19:04:47, gen...@mva.name wrote: > > There is an option to support; the packages need to be reinstalled > > or there are untracked files; the manpage formatter needs to call > > external unpackers. All this to save 40M. I honestly don't think > > it's worth it. > > Why do you care about

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

> > This is Gentoo 2.2 (4.4.6-gentoo x86_64). > > That doesn't actually tell any Gentoo user anything about your system > except a very specific few bits of data which do not relate at all to > the rest of the subject matter of your e-mail. I am not really familiar eith this system - what would

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

> There is an option to support; the packages need to be reinstalled > or there are untracked files; the manpage formatter needs to call > external unpackers. All this to save 40M. I honestly don't think > it's worth it. Why do you care about calling external unpacker, but do not care about

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Jan 10 12:54:21, h...@stare.cz wrote: > Also, the uncompressed manpage will not get updated > when the packages gets updated. I will have two copies, > a stale *.1 and an up-to-date *.1.bz2. And things like /usr/share/man/man1/sx.1.bz2 will not get unbzipped, because it's a symlink, now

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Jan 09 09:30:11, ike...@gentoo.org wrote: > Hiya Jan, > > The following snippet from Ingo is correct: > > > So, you want to hear something constructive? Your best option is to > > just decompress that stuff on your system. (Gentoo is famous for > > its excessive configurability - maybe

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:08:22 +0100 Jan Stary wrote: > This is Gentoo 2.2 (4.4.6-gentoo x86_64). That doesn't actually tell any Gentoo user anything about your system except a very specific few bits of data which do not relate at all to the rest of the subject matter of your

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:30:11 + Mike Auty wrote: > As mentioned in [2,3,others]. You'll then need to reinstall all > packages. Well, most. Probably a subset of "all", and if anything gets stuck half way, you'll want to know which remaining packages need merged. find

Re: [gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

Hiya Jan, The following snippet from Ingo is correct: > So, you want to hear something constructive? Your best option is to > just decompress that stuff on your system. (Gentoo is famous for > its excessive configurability - maybe there is even an option?) We are both famous for our excessive

[gentoo-dev] bzipped manpages

This is Gentoo 2.2 (4.4.6-gentoo x86_64). The system manpages seem to be bzipped as in /usr/share/man/man1/ls.1.bz2 Why is that? Is there any benefit to compressing the manpages nowadays? IMHO it only adds a layer of complexity, for very questionable benefit (i.e. disk space): how much of the