[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] LZMA - in or out? ([signoff] libarchive 2.6.0 )

[Thomas Bächler]

Pierre Schmitz schrieb:
> I am just doing some very simple test right now. (default compression preset)
> 
> core (x86_64)		(decompress time)
> 	none	552M
> 	gzip	186M	12s
> 	xz		121M	17s
> 
> I will add a test for extra later.
> 
> Even though this might not be a really valid benchmark it show that its 
> defintely worth it. Most people will benefit from a smaller download size 
> which should also comensate the slightly increase decompression time. (I don't 
> think that a lot of people download 65MB within 5s)

Agreed. This is not even a hard transition: It should be no problem to 
have mixed gzip and lzma packages in the repos, so this will be a smooth 
transition (only new packages will be rebuilt, old ones will stay as 
they are). pacman doesn't care how it is compressed, as long as 
libarchive supports it, so the user shouldn't even notice (we should 
only ensure that pacman and libarchive stay gzip for a while).

Does repo-add/dbscripts/devtools do anything gzip-specific? If so, it's 
probably easy to get rid of.

Anyone else in favor of moving to lzma? Related: lzma-compressed kernel 
(support with 2.6.30 and newer), maybe lzma-compressed squashfs on the 
live CDs (2.6.30 has lzma support, no idea if squashfs can use it already).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20090512/ead3ee82/attachment.pgp>