Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 May 2006 15:38:53 +0200 (MEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: Linux Kernel Source Compression |
| |
>> >> > Any idea why this wasn't done for bzip2? >> >> >> >> Yes, the bzip2 author I have been told was originally planning to do >> >> that, but then thought it would be harder to deploy that way (because >> >> gzip is a core utility, and people are nervous about making it larger.) >> >> I'd say that concern is valid. >> >> >It's a bit of a shame bzip2 even exists, really. It really would be better >> > if there was one unified, pluggable archiver on UNIX (and portables). >> >> Would You Like To Contribute(tm)? :) >> Whenever a program is missing, someone is there to write it. > >I would, but if it's a "valid concern" that gzip is a few hundred KB larger, >and the community would not graciously receive such work, there's not much >point, is there? :-) > Make it use shared libraries (did I already mention that?)
BTW, "a few hundred KB" is really overestimated if it's just about bzip2: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 27640 Apr 23 02:20 /usr/bin/bzip2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 66864 Apr 23 02:20 /lib/libbz2.so.1.0.0 That's not even _one_ hundred KB. Oh, just keep it as .so. :) And of course, compile with klibc, it has less loader bloat than glibc (as someone had found out...I think it was Greg.)
Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |