On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:36 AM Martin Pitt <martin.p...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Didier Roche [2015-08-12 12:29 +0200]: > > Le 12/08/2015 12:15, Martin Pitt a écrit : > > >Sebastien Bacher [2015-08-12 12:03 +0200]: > > >>Did anyone measure what difference with/without the png optimizer would > > >>make on the iso/standard install? Without numbers we can't really > decide > > >>on the cost/benefit... > > >Back on natty it was ~ 5.5 MB (compressed size) gain with compressing > > >PNGs and 7 MB with compressing SVGs. > > > > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint > > > > > >There is no reason to believe that the numbers would be dramatically > > >different these days, i. e. you can expect a 10 to 15 MB gain on a > > >desktop ISO from this. > > > > > >Martin > > > > Is that only iso/image size (so recompressed in the squashfs) or the > gain of > > an ubuntu install itself, on disk? > > As I said, "compressed size", i. e. squashfs/deb difference. PNGs > are already compressed so don't make much difference on an install; > SVGs will get quite a bit bigger uncompressed (but I don't have any > numbers). > > Martin > > -- > Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de > Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) > > > On the worst offenders, what about working with upstream to get the png optimizations submitted and accepted? When this happens set up an environment variable in debian/rules to indicate to skip optimization as it's not necessary.
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
