Re: Please add lzip support in the repository
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 17:20:01 +0200
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Please add lzip support in the repository
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:01:12AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Thomas Pircher wrote:
> > in the example you mentioned upstream have added xz to the set of archives
> > they distribute their source in. Currently the GNU Octave source code is
> > being distributed as .gz, lz and .xz tarballs.
> >  https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/octave/
> Looking at the timestamps, it appears starting with 4.2.0, only gz and
> lz was provided, and again for 4.2.1 that was the case, and then in
> the middle of June this year (so some 7 months after the 4.2.0 release)
> someone went and added xz archives as well, probably because they used
> to have them, and someone asked to keep having them.
> So they used to be gz and xz only, then went to gz and lz only, and then
> later had xz added back again so they now have 3 types. Seems good in
> the end.
> No idea what compression options were used, but certainly the lz looks
> a good chunk smaller than the xz for those archives.
That's because lzip was used with max settings, xz with the defaults.
If you want a fair comparison:
-rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 98826240 Jun 16 20:26 octave-4.2.1.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 15826565 Jul 7 17:13 octave-4.2.1.tar.lz
-rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 15174400 Jul 7 17:13 octave-4.2.1.tar.xz
xz wins by 4.2%, with the same settings.
Thus, I'd recommend dropping lzip completely. It's worse and obscure.
With every distro having standardized on xz, providing lzip tarballs is
a pure waste of space.
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.