xz-compressed release tarballs?

Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
Thu Jan 26 20:32:00 GMT 2012


On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:21:47 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> With xz -9e, that would have been 25% smaller,
> at 15282412 bytes (contrast w/20614020 for .bz2).
> The .xz tarball would have uncompressed more quickly, too.

+1

That slow bzip2 decompression is a continuous pain during packaging, staring
at bzip2 -dc on each gdb.spec debugging cycle.

bzip2 -dc = 0m3.641s -> xz -dc = 0m1.264s

Previous proposal by me:
	xz for the new release tip
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-09/msg00341.html


Thanks,
Jan



More information about the Gdb mailing list