svn commit: r264027 - in head: release share/man/man7

[Glen Barber]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:52:44AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 2014-04-02 11:23, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> >On 04/02/14 12:06, Glen Barber wrote:
> >>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> >>>On 04/02/14 11:51, Glen Barber wrote:
> >>>>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:40:22AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:41:27PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote:
> >>>>>>Author: gjb
> >>>>>>Date: Tue Apr  1 22:41:26 2014
> >>>>>>New Revision: 264027
> >>>>>>URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/264027
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Log:
> >>>>>>  Add a new release build variable, WITH_COMPRESSED_IMAGES.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  When set to a non-empty value, the installation medium is
> >>>>>>  compressed with gzip(1) as part of the 'install' target in
> >>>>>>  the release/ directory.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  With gzip(1) compression, downloadable image are reduced in
> >>>>>>  size quite significantly.  Build test against head at 263927
> >>>>>>  shows the following:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   bootonly.iso:		64% smaller
> >>>>>>   disc1.iso:		44% smaller
> >>>>>>   memstick.img:		47% smaller
> >>>>>>   mini-memstick.img:	65% smaller
> >>>>>>   dvd1.iso:		untested
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  This option is off by default, I would eventually like to
> >>>>>>  turn it on by default, and remove the '-k' flag to gzip(1)
> >>>>>>  so only compressed images are published on FTP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'd recommend testing xz compression as well.  With UFS images of
> >>>>>a full
> >>>>>world the savings vs gzip are significant (more than 30% IIRC, but
> >>>>>it's
> >>>>>need more than a year since I checked so I'm a bit unsure of the
> >>>>>exact
> >>>>>numbers).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>delphij also brought this up.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have concerns with xz(1), since there was mention in IRC that
> >>>>Windows
> >>>>users may have problems decompressing xz-compressed images.  So,
> >>>>gzip(1)
> >>>>is used because it seems to be the more commonly-supported archive
> >>>>mechanisms.
> >>>>
> >>>>The benefit of xz(1) over gzip(1) was only 50M-ish.
> >>>>
> >>>>  -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   601M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso
> >>>>  -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   381M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.bz2
> >>>>  -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   392M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.gz
> >>>>  -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   348M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.xz
> >>>>
> >>>>Glen
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>How about 7zip (Windows program, not file format)? What would a
> >>>Windows
> >>>user use that can decompress gzip and not xz? It was a problem around
> >>>~2007, but xz support is no longer rare or exotic.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't know, to be honest.  I have no Windows machines to test, so
> >>I can only go by what I am told.
> >>
> >>Glen
> >>
> >
> >I just verified it with 7zip for Windows version 9.22. It extracts
> >.tar.xz archives and decompresses .xz images.
> >
> >- Nikolai Lifanov
> 
> My concern was requiring a *specific* tool to extract the ISO. However I do
> see that Winzip and Winrar both now support XZ as well.
> 

Indeed, this was another thing I wanted to avoid too (and meant to
include that in the commit message).

Glen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20140402/d64cce83/attachment.sig>