Change to bzip2?

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:20 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:

[snip]

> >
> >I think bzip2 is the winner at least from the future point of view.
> >  
> >
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> Now try to get the -9 changed in rpm.

   Never mind that, he needs more than just one data point to prove the
point.  I just tried compressing and decompressing linux-2.6.10.tar with
'bzip2 -9' and 'gzip -9' and still get a seven-fold increase in
performance for gzip.

> And it also makes little sense to bzip tarballs that end up in gzipped 
> payloads imho.

  Which begs the question ... why has Red Hat (at least in some cases,
historically), veered (admittedly only slightly) from the pristine
source principle by uncompressing gzipped tarballs and recompressing
them with bzip2 only to stuff them in into an rpm if rpm uses gzip?

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets