"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On 20 Nov 2001, Trond Eivind [iso-8859-1] Glomsrød wrote:
>
> > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> >
> > > > If I'd downloaded this thing over a decent DSL or cable modem
> > > > line, bzip2 would actually be a net loss in total
> > > > download + uncompress time.
> > >
> > > I think the download time is a lot more important to people than
> > > the uncompression time. A savings of nearly 1.5 Megs is
> > > significant, no matter what type of line you are on.
> >
> > And for CD space (I'd love bzipped binaries), ftp space, etc (not only
> > for mirrors, but for distributions shipping postgresql and mirrors
> > thereeof.
>
> Huh? You are advocating adding to the ftp space required? *raised
> eyebrow*
Replace gz with bz2, and you'll save :) - also, bzipped files will
allow others who only ship one instance (like us - we only need one
tarball for the SRPM), and these will save space.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
