[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ users] XZ Migration discussion
    On 02/14/10 01:23, Jean Delvare wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:52:17 +0000, Phillip Lougher wrote:
    >> Jean Delvare wrote:
    >>> Compared to bz2, gz saves... 2% on the overall time. As a conclusion, I
    >>> think we can plain discard the argument "I need .gz because my machine
    >>> is slow" from now on. It simply doesn't hold.
    >> I agree, but, IMHO the main argument for keeping .gz is cross-platform
    >> availability and wide language support, not hardware limitations. Doing
    >> a quick google brings up .gz interfaces for every language you can think
    >> of (C, Java, Perl, Python, TCL etc.), not to mention complete separate
    >> implementations in Java and Pascal (not just wrappers on top of the zlib
    >> library), and probably more.
    >> With xz you have just one C/C++ implementation with a single library with
    >> an undocumented API for C/C++ programmers.
    > This can probably be easily explained. gz is very fast decompressing so
    > it is a very good choice for transparent decompression of files which
    > must be accessible fast but aren't used frequently. Manual pages or
    > printer drivers come to mind. bz2 and lzma, OTOH, are meant for longer
    > term archiving. Their compression ratio benefit is only worth it for
    > larger files that you don't access that frequently.
    > I am not claiming that gzip is dead. It is very useful and it is there
    > to stay for the years to come, no doubt about that. What I'm saying is
    > that it isn't the best choice for large files to be downloaded from a
    > remote server.
    >> It may be a slight stretch of the imagination, but with with .gz you can
    >> conceive programmers writing programs to download a .gz from and
    >> decompressing/searching it, in almost any language of choice. With the JAVA
    >> implementation .gz is genuinely cross platform and you don't need glibc/
    >> C++ compilers, just a Java VM. Contrast with xz, where if the xz utility
    >> isn't available, or doesn't do what you want, you're stuck with programming
    >> in C/C++ with all the baggage that entails.
    > Honestly, I don't think we care at all when it comes to the
    > files. Accessing individual files inside a compressed kernel tarball
    > without first expanding it entirely would be horribly slow and
    > unpractical, no matter which compression format was used. I can't think
    > of any case where you won't unpack the tarball first, and for this task
    > an external tool will do just fine.
    > And, once again, there are several public instances of gitweb and LXR
    > available if you only want to browse the code.

    just out of curiosity what would happen if by say
    I take a file and turn it into .gz then turn the .gz
    into .xz or vice versa?

    so at the end of the day you have a list of .gz's(or whatever),
    then expending on the type(.gz,.bz2,etc..) unpackage and voila either a
    tree or some other compressed file(.bz2,xz, or .gz).

    just thinking out loud(so don't shoot me please).

    Justin P. Mattock

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-14 10:37    [W:0.025 / U:15.712 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site