radical suggestion for fc4 release

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 19:47 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 19:09 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>>Oh, no.  *Bad* idea.  It's an attack on the symptom, not the problem.
> >>>
> >>>If changelogs are bloating the headers yum has to download, then 
> >>>strip them out when generating the yum headers.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>it's not bloating the headers - well not JUST that.
> >>
> >>I'm also thinking of decreasing the useles space eaten up by them on the
> >>cd isos.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Switching the rpm payload to bzip2 would probably give you much more
> >space
> >
> >FWIW: AFAIK, SuSE uses bzip2 payloads.
> >  
> >
> 
> Yep, and so does PLD.
> 
> Very very very foolish imho, as rpm is rate limited by decompression,
> and bzip2 uncompress is known 5-7 times slower than gzip.
Well, people are complaining about sizes, bandwidth and diskspace ...

... not about installation speed.

OK, people are used to using gzip-payloads and probably would start to
complain when installing bzip'ed rpms (I recall me having complained
about SuSE when installing bzip'ed rpms on my ancient i586 notebook).

> BUt feel free to change Fedora Core to "Be just like SuSE" if you want.
No, that's not my intention. It's just that I can't deny nor ignore
having used SuSE for ~8 years.

> PLD (my favorite distro, they are quiet and sensible in Poland ;-), is 
> considering
> reverting to gzip when I pointed out that bzip2 was 5-7 times slower.
> 
> Add --stats, any install, run your own benchmark.
I did some checks comparing gzip vs. bzip on metadata repositories
sometime last year. IIRC, I posted the results to this list.

The result was not as eye-striking as one might expect.

Ralf