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
