On Tuesday 06 March 2012 12:03:43 Jim Meyering wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 March 2012 04:57:27 Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz: > >> - xz decompresses more quickly > > > > is that true ? i thought last i looked, they were close, but gzip was > > consistently slightly faster. maybe if the bottleneck is more I/O than > > CPU/memory, xz would win ? > > Even back when the program was named lzma, it was always > much more efficient at decompressing than *bzip2*: sure, i agree completely that xz over bzip2 is a no brainer in pretty much every way possible :) -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
