From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DDD138010 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53F6521C0AA; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12A721C01F for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.29] (e178079088.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.79.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 672F033CEF6 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50637878.1080500@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:49:44 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Firefox/15.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.12.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ship app-arch/pbzip2 instead of app-arch/bzip2 References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: da238a1e-b195-4fa5-bdfb-80b7637557ea X-Archives-Hash: 5a73449406ce79e4dd5a65fa3b990f4d Michael Mol schrieb: > A few months ago, I filed bug 423651 to ask that bzip2 on the install > media be replaced with > pbzip2. If I understand correctly, pbzip2 depends on bzip2. So what you are asking is that pbzip2 is preferred over bzip2 when both are installed, and that pbzip2 is installed by default? I have so far encountered only one anecdotal case in #gentoo IRC where pbzip2[symlink] caused problems in emerging a package. Disabling the symlink flag made the problem go away. However I can't point to the report right now, maybe someone with searchable backlog can uncover it. A different question is whether in the cases where parallel bzip2 makes sense, is it really the best solution? xz is outperforming bzip2's compression ratio for large files (for an informal comparison, see bug 434350). And xz is faster at decompression, which offsets the parallel advantage to some degree. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn