svn commit: r264027 - in head: release share/man/man7
gjb at FreeBSD.org
Wed Apr 2 16:07:03 UTC 2014
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the svn-src-head