On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:52:44AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 2014-04-02 11:23, Nikolai Lifanov wrote: > >On 04/02/14 12:06, Glen Barber wrote: > >>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote: > >>>On 04/02/14 11:51, Glen Barber wrote: > >>>>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:40:22AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>>>On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:41:27PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > >>>>>>Author: gjb > >>>>>>Date: Tue Apr 1 22:41:26 2014 > >>>>>>New Revision: 264027 > >>>>>>URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/264027 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Log: > >>>>>> Add a new release build variable, WITH_COMPRESSED_IMAGES. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When set to a non-empty value, the installation medium is > >>>>>> compressed with gzip(1) as part of the 'install' target in > >>>>>> the release/ directory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> With gzip(1) compression, downloadable image are reduced in > >>>>>> size quite significantly. Build test against head@263927 > >>>>>> shows the following: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> bootonly.iso: 64% smaller > >>>>>> disc1.iso: 44% smaller > >>>>>> memstick.img: 47% smaller > >>>>>> mini-memstick.img: 65% smaller > >>>>>> dvd1.iso: untested > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This option is off by default, I would eventually like to > >>>>>> turn it on by default, and remove the '-k' flag to gzip(1) > >>>>>> so only compressed images are published on FTP. > >>>>> > >>>>>I'd recommend testing xz compression as well. With UFS images of > >>>>>a full > >>>>>world the savings vs gzip are significant (more than 30% IIRC, but > >>>>>it's > >>>>>need more than a year since I checked so I'm a bit unsure of the > >>>>>exact > >>>>>numbers). > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>delphij also brought this up. > >>>> > >>>>I have concerns with xz(1), since there was mention in IRC that > >>>>Windows > >>>>users may have problems decompressing xz-compressed images. So, > >>>>gzip(1) > >>>>is used because it seems to be the more commonly-supported archive > >>>>mechanisms. > >>>> > >>>>The benefit of xz(1) over gzip(1) was only 50M-ish. > >>>> > >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 601M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso > >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 381M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.bz2 > >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 392M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.gz > >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 348M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.xz > >>>> > >>>>Glen > >>>> > >>> > >>>How about 7zip (Windows program, not file format)? What would a > >>>Windows > >>>user use that can decompress gzip and not xz? It was a problem around > >>>~2007, but xz support is no longer rare or exotic. > >>> > >> > >>I don't know, to be honest. I have no Windows machines to test, so > >>I can only go by what I am told. > >> > >>Glen > >> > > > >I just verified it with 7zip for Windows version 9.22. It extracts > >.tar.xz archives and decompresses .xz images. > > > >- Nikolai Lifanov > > My concern was requiring a *specific* tool to extract the ISO. However I do > see that Winzip and Winrar both now support XZ as well. >
Indeed, this was another thing I wanted to avoid too (and meant to include that in the commit message). Glen
pgpYMQndACjqx.pgp
Description: PGP signature