Hi everyone, The TeXLive project is considering using the lzma format instead of bz2 for its next release, and I wondered whether it is supported by makepkg. It is not, as I expected. But to my suprise, there is not even a PKGBUILD for it in AUR/unsupported! I have thus just uploaded lzma-utils to [community]. In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/). Regards, François PS: A quick question: I have built a x86_64 package on Aaron's machine. What should I do to upload and commit it to the repo? Just "communitypkg" ?
2008/3/10, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net>:
Hi everyone,
The TeXLive project is considering using the lzma format instead of bz2 for its next release, and I wondered whether it is supported by makepkg. It is not, as I expected. But to my suprise, there is not even a PKGBUILD for it in AUR/unsupported! I have thus just uploaded lzma-utils to [community]. In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/).
Regards, François
PS: A quick question: I have built a x86_64 package on Aaron's machine. What should I do to upload and commit it to the repo? Just "communitypkg" ?
No. You have to change the port in .tupkg first. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#Uploading_pa... Be sure to not confuse ports for i686 and x86_64! -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Roman Kyrylych a écrit :
PS: A quick question: I have built a x86_64 package on Aaron's machine. What should I do to upload and commit it to the repo? Just "communitypkg" ?
No. You have to change the port in .tupkg first. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#Uploading_pa... Be sure to not confuse ports for i686 and x86_64!
Thanks. But I should have been clearer: I meant whether it is possible to do this from Aaron's machine, i.e. without having to transfer the binary package to my machine first... F
2008/3/10, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net>:
Roman Kyrylych a écrit :
PS: A quick question: I have built a x86_64 package on Aaron's machine. What should I do to upload and commit it to the repo? Just "communitypkg" ?
No. You have to change the port in .tupkg first. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#Uploading_pa... Be sure to not confuse ports for i686 and x86_64!
Thanks. But I should have been clearer: I meant whether it is possible to do this from Aaron's machine, i.e. without having to transfer the binary package to my machine first...
Ah. I don't know, be cause I've never used it. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
2008/3/10, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net>:
Hi everyone,
The TeXLive project is considering using the lzma format instead of bz2 for its next release, and I wondered whether it is supported by makepkg. It is not, as I expected. But to my suprise, there is not even a PKGBUILD for it in AUR/unsupported! I have thus just uploaded lzma-utils to [community]. In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/).
Doesn't p7zip handle lzma archives? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Roman Kyrylych a écrit :
2008/3/10, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net>:
Hi everyone,
The TeXLive project is considering using the lzma format instead of bz2 for its next release, and I wondered whether it is supported by makepkg. It is not, as I expected. But to my suprise, there is not even a PKGBUILD for it in AUR/unsupported! I have thus just uploaded lzma-utils to [community]. In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/).
Doesn't p7zip handle lzma archives?
No. p7zip uses the lzma algorithm to generate its own format. Files compressed with lzma cannot be decompressed with 7z.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:41:52AM +0100, Firmicus wrote:
Roman Kyrylych a écrit :
2008/3/10, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net>:
Hi everyone,
The TeXLive project is considering using the lzma format instead of bz2 for its next release, and I wondered whether it is supported by makepkg. It is not, as I expected. But to my suprise, there is not even a PKGBUILD for it in AUR/unsupported! I have thus just uploaded lzma-utils to [community]. In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/).
Doesn't p7zip handle lzma archives?
No. p7zip uses the lzma algorithm to generate its own format. Files compressed with lzma cannot be decompressed with 7z.
Not that important but you also need to adopt the package you uploaded. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15625 Greg
Not that important but you also need to adopt the package you uploaded.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15625
Greg
Oops, thanks ;) btw, 64 bit version is now available too.
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 10:00 +0100, Firmicus wrote:
In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/).
[AUR] lzma 4.32.0beta2-3 [unsupported] Compression program, stronger and slower than bzip2 [AUR] lzma-utils 4.32.5-1 [community] Compression utility like bzip2, but 15% better and 2-5 times faster This is odd :)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Timm Preetz wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 10:00 +0100, Firmicus wrote:
In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/).
[AUR] lzma 4.32.0beta2-3 [unsupported] Compression program, stronger and slower than bzip2
[AUR] lzma-utils 4.32.5-1 [community] Compression utility like bzip2, but 15% better and 2-5 times faster
This is odd :)
I did a quick test, and lzma -1 seems to achieve a similar compression ratio than bzip2, in less time : 8s vs 10s. That's not exactly a 2-5 times faster. It was also faster at decompressing, 2s vs 3s. So it does seem like it should be preferred to bzip2, but it's still not comparable to gzip, which has a lower compression rate but is much faster at both compression and decompression.
Xavier a écrit :
[AUR] lzma 4.32.0beta2-3 [unsupported] Compression program, stronger and slower than bzip2
[AUR] lzma-utils 4.32.5-1 [community] Compression utility like bzip2, but 15% better and 2-5 times faster
This is odd :)
Odd indeed, since I DID search for "lzma" on AUR before making my pkg, and there were no results.
In any case, it is definitely NOT slower than bzip2! I guess whoever put lzma on AUR/unsupported actually wanted to write "stronger and slower than gzip".
I did a quick test, and lzma -1 seems to achieve a similar compression ratio than bzip2, in less time : 8s vs 10s. That's not exactly a 2-5 times faster. It was also faster at decompressing, 2s vs 3s.
So it does seem like it should be preferred to bzip2, but it's still not comparable to gzip, which has a lower compression rate but is much faster at both compression and decompression.
Yes, but see http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks for details. The "2 to 5 times faster" actually applies to decompression speed, not compression. BTW, nothing beats gzip in terms of speed and memory footprint... But if you need higher rates of compression, then lzma seems to be a great alternative to bzip2.
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:19 +0100, Firmicus wrote:
BTW, nothing beats gzip in terms of speed and memory footprint... But if you need higher rates of compression, then lzma seems to be a great alternative to bzip2.
Yes. And especially for LaTeX packages this seems good. Would probably also make sense to offer big packages as lzma instead of gz, but not sure how big the difference in size really is. But that few MBs are probably never worth the confusion it would make to offer packages in just another format...
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: aur-general-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:aur-general- bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Timm Preetz Verzonden: maandag 10 maart 2008 15:39 Aan: Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR) Onderwerp: Re: [aur-general] lzma
Yes. And especially for LaTeX packages this seems good. Would probably also make sense to offer big packages as lzma instead of gz, but not sure how big the difference in size really is.
But that few MBs are probably never worth the confusion it would make to offer packages in just another format...
Pacman 3.1.x doesn't have problems with packages in whatever file format you feed it, as long as libarchive can read it. At this moment, that will be everything that can be extracted using bsdtar. Lzma is one of the formats not yet included into libarchive.
Timm Preetz a écrit :
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:19 +0100, Firmicus wrote:
BTW, nothing beats gzip in terms of speed and memory footprint... But if you need higher rates of compression, then lzma seems to be a great alternative to bzip2.
Yes. And especially for LaTeX packages this seems good. Would probably also make sense to offer big packages as lzma instead of gz, but not sure how big the difference in size really is.
But that few MBs are probably never worth the confusion it would make to offer packages in just another format...
The *sources* for TeXLive 2008 will be offered as tar.lzma archives instead of tar.bz2. This makes a little difference in size, but it does make a big difference in decompression time! Note that this does not affect users, only distro maintainers.
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 16:51 +0100, Firmicus wrote:
The *sources* for TeXLive 2008 will be offered as tar.lzma archives instead of tar.bz2. This makes a little difference in size, but it does make a big difference in decompression time! Note that this does not affect users, only distro maintainers.
Yeah I got that. Ok, so they do it only for the decompression time. I thought they might do it for the size also, because maybe lzma work especially well on their sources. But if it's only because of the time, then it doesn't matter.
Timm Preetz a écrit :
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 10:00 +0100, Firmicus wrote:
In case some of you are interested, it is said to achieve 15% better compression rates than bzip2 while being 2 to 5 times faster. And decompression is nearly as fast as gunzip (see http://tukaani.org/lzma/).
[AUR] lzma 4.32.0beta2-3 [unsupported] Compression program, stronger and slower than bzip2
[AUR] lzma-utils 4.32.5-1 [community] Compression utility like bzip2, but 15% better and 2-5 times faster
This is odd :)
OK, I removed my lzma-utils from community, and adopted + updated lzma instead (and moved it to community). F
participants (6)
-
Firmicus
-
Grigorios Bouzakis
-
Jan de Groot
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Timm Preetz
-
Xavier