[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openbsd-ports
Subject:    Re: RFC#8 - bzip2
From:       Ed White <ed () overminder ! com>
Date:       2003-02-26 22:02:28
[Download RAW message or body]

> (vax tmp 42)$ time (bzip2 -d ezm3-1.0-src.tar.bz2; tar xf ezm3-1.0-src.tar)
>   541.11s real   183.80s user    38.87s system
> (vax tmp 43)$ rm -rf ezm3-1.0; time tar zxf ezm3-1.0-src.tar.gz
>   184.82s real     1.62s user    28.46s system

eh eh eh
This test is bad done and you know. ;-)

Try this for a real comparison:

$ time (bzip2 -d ezm3-1.0-src.tar.bz2; tar xf ezm3-1.0-src.tar)
$ rm -rf ezm3-1.0

$ time (gzip -d ezm3-1.0-src.tar.gz; tar xf ezm3-1.0-src.tar)

I'm sure gzip will be faster, however I prefer save time on bandwidth and disk 
space. Also note that bandwidth is shared among computers, CPU isn't, but 
these are details...

Try OpenOffice download + decompression to smile ;-)


> If that really bothers you, just use the prebuilt packages.  I am really
> against moving towards bzip2 distfiles everywhere by default, since it
> simply does not gain much.  Now, to make it optional is another
> possibility, but that adds unnecessary complexity (you will have to
> check that both distfiles can be downloaded, and most people will forget
> to do that).  So it will probably just stay the way it is - learn to
> live with it.

(RFC#9)
I'm simply asking to publically define a preferred order for distfiles format 
and I'll suggest bzip2 as first choice.

You choose.

Simply write the ordered list somewhere for ports maintainers (and users).


	Ed




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]