Arch Linux

appel

Member

From: South Africa

Registered: 2008-03-25

Posts: 32

bzip2 instead of gzip

Hi guys,

Is there some special reason why Arch uses Gzip instead of Bzip2 for it's packages?  I know it's not critical, but it would make a big disk/time and bandwidth  saving if it was switched to bzip2 by default.

Thoughts?

Last edited by appel (2008-04-01 12:07:45)

Allan

Developer

From: Brisbane, AU

Registered: 2007-06-09

Posts: 9,939

Website

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

This has been discussed many times before. One suggestion is that gzip is quicker to compress/extract so (in theory) it is quicker for most people with a reasonable fast download speed to update.  Another is the gzip is used "just coz".... 

---

Blog | PGP Key: EAE999BD2 | Hapkido Brisbane

toofishes

Developer

From: Chicago, IL

Registered: 2006-06-06

Posts: 602

Website

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/2264

appel

Member

From: South Africa

Registered: 2008-03-25

Posts: 32

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

Thanks, I understand.

Based on our 'broadband' infrastructure here, I did not consider that some people actually uncompress the files longer than it takes to download them.  I see the problem.

I did not see anyone suggest that perphaps both should be supported?  Would just mean more disk space on the mirrors and a bit longer to add a single package (compressed for each format).  GZ by default, with the option of using BZ packages?

iphitus

Forum Fellow

From: Melbourne, Australia

Registered: 2004-10-09

Posts: 4,927

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

pacman uses libarchive which supports both. It'd happily install a bz2 compressed package.

appel

Member

From: South Africa

Registered: 2008-03-25

Posts: 32

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

Thats good.

What would it take to get the mirrors to have bz packages available though?

appel

Member

From: South Africa

Registered: 2008-03-25

Posts: 32

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

Just to be clear.

Ok, so since Pacman can and does support BZ2 packages, would the developers consider compressing each package into both formats, and basicly upload each package to a mirror twice?

Last edited by appel (2008-04-01 12:38:22)

dyscoria

Member

Registered: 2008-01-10

Posts: 1,007

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

Not really keeping it simple IMO.

---

flack 2.0.6: menu-driven BASH script to easily tag FLAC files (AUR)
knock-once 1.2: BASH script to easily create/send one-time sequences for knockd (forum/AUR)

Allan

Developer

From: Brisbane, AU

Registered: 2007-06-09

Posts: 9,939

Website

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

I'm against uploading both because it already takes me about 1hr to upload a 40Mb package to community due to crappy internet connection...  And I have to do it twice (i686 and x86_64) anyway.

Look at the opened date on the bug report linked above (Thursday, 24 February 2005). This discussion has been around for a while.

---

Blog | PGP Key: EAE999BD2 | Hapkido Brisbane

appel

Member

From: South Africa

Registered: 2008-03-25

Posts: 32

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

Ok, while this is by no means impossible to do (ie, the main mirror can simply extract the gz's and make new bz's, so you dont need to upload twice..), it does seem like there is not enough interest, and as such I accept the outcome.  Not ideal for me, but won't make me stop using Arch or something.

Thanks for the input.

shining

Pacman Developer

Registered: 2006-05-10

Posts: 2,043

Re: bzip2 instead of gzip

lzma seems to be superior to bz2 in almost every aspect :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacm … 11496.html
However, it apparently can't be supported by libarchive for licensing problems :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacm … 11498.html

---

pacman roulette : pacman -S $(pacman -Slq | LANG=C sort -R | head -n $((RANDOM % 10)))