tar.xz packages support
Hi. I'd like to ask if there are any plans to include support of tar.xz packages in upcoming releases of pkgutils? Just like Archlinux did http://www.archlinux.org/news/490/. Thanks. Sergei.
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 11:43:13AM +0400, Johnny wrote:
Hi.
Hello Sergei,
I'd like to ask if there are any plans to include support of tar.xz packages in upcoming releases of pkgutils? Just like Archlinux did http://www.archlinux.org/news/490/. Thanks.
This was already discussed a bit, see [1]. Having packages compressed with xz make sense if you distribute binary packages like arch does, but not for sources-based distro like CRUX. IMO it's not acceptable if every user has to wait a factor of 16 longer until pkgmk has compressed the package. regards Juergen [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.distributions.crux.devel/2117 -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 11:43:13AM +0400, Johnny wrote:
Hi.
Hello Sergei,
I'd like to ask if there are any plans to include support of tar.xz packages in upcoming releases of pkgutils? Just like Archlinux did http://www.archlinux.org/news/490/. Thanks.
This was already discussed a bit, see [1]. Having packages compressed with xz make sense if you distribute binary packages like arch does, but not for sources-based distro like CRUX. IMO it's not acceptable if every user has to wait a factor of 16 longer until pkgmk has compressed the package.
* of course the compression time ratio between xz and gzip depends on many factors and is not a constant, 16 was just the number I got for the example in [1]. -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 11:43:13AM +0400, Johnny wrote:
Hi.
Hello Sergei,
I'd like to ask if there are any plans to include support of tar.xz packages in upcoming releases of pkgutils? Just like Archlinux did http://www.archlinux.org/news/490/. Thanks.
This was already discussed a bit, see [1]. Having packages compressed with xz make sense if you distribute binary packages like arch does, but not for sources-based distro like CRUX. IMO it's not acceptable if every user has to wait a factor of 16 longer until pkgmk has compressed the package. But what about the choice? You just could add some variable like PKGMK_EXT=gz or xz to let the user deceide himself. That could be a wise decision.
* of course the compression time ratio between xz and gzip depends on many factors and is not a constant, 16 was just the number I got for the example in [1]. But you could simply adjust the comression ratio for xz to recieve a good balance between time/space. Also i heard that decompression time for xz is almost the same as for gz, plus users will get a smaller distro size to download. http://linuxgazette.net/162/lindholm.html
... Here's a quick test with our latest xulrunner package: $:> mkdir foo $:> tar -C foo -xf xulrunner#1.9.0.11-1.pkg.tar.gz $:> time tar -czf foo.tar.gz foo real 0m4.409s user 0m4.250s sys 0m0.150s $:> time tar -cJf foo.tar.xz foo # -9 compression real 1m11.419s user 1m10.950s sys 0m0.570s $:> echo 'scale=2; (60+11.42)/4.41' | bc 16.19 $:> ls -l *.gz *.xz -rw-r--r-- 1 juergen users 18224116 Jun 15 10:02 foo.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 juergen users 12979240 Jun 15 10:04 foo.tar.xz ... Well, IMHO i don't think that time spent to compress xulrunner would be much longer than time spent to compile it. And there're not that many BIG packages and they are compiled not that often to care about it i suppose.
participants (2)
-
Johnny -
Juergen Daubert