From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60952) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TrHps-0001uD-CY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:42:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TrHpq-0000Yp-Uk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:42:04 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52940) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TrHpq-0000Yl-MX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:42:02 -0500 Message-ID: <50E776C5.5070809@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:41:41 -0700 From: Eric Blake MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20120802100815.GG18868@rox.home.comstyle.com> <20130105002806.GC11220@rox.home.comstyle.com> In-Reply-To: <20130105002806.GC11220@rox.home.comstyle.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1D4C209CC7B7C0053BA52B98" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] build: change dist target to use xz List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Brad Smith Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig1D4C209CC7B7C0053BA52B98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/04/2013 05:28 PM, Brad Smith wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:08:15AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote: >> If a compression format other than gzip is used we might >> as well move to xz instead of bzip2. Agreed, many projects are dropping bzip2 as irrelevant (slower than the more-widely-available gz, compresses worse than newcomer xz). > +++ b/scripts/make-release > @@ -20,5 +20,5 @@ git checkout "v${version}" > git submodule update --init > rm -rf .git roms/*/.git > popd > -tar cfj ${destination}.tar.bz2 ${destination} > +XZ_OPT=3D-9 tar cfJ ${destination}.tar.xz ${destination} Do we really need -9? For example, coreutils did an interesting benchmark in its cfg.mk file, and chose to use -8e instead of -9 as a result: >> # Comparing tarball sizes compressed using different xz presets, we se= e that >> # an -8e-compressed tarball is only 9KiB larger than the -9e-compresse= d one. >> # Using -8e is preferred, since that lets the decompression process us= e half >> # the memory (32MiB rather than 64MiB). >> # $ for i in {7,8,9}{e,}; do \ >> # (n=3D$(xz -$i < coreutils-8.15*.tar|wc -c);echo $n $i) & done |s= ort -nr >> # 5129388 7 >> # 5036524 7e >> # 5017476 8 >> # 5010604 9 >> # 4923016 8e >> # 4914152 9e Also, your use of tar cfJ assumes relatively new GNU tar; it won't work on other systems (but this is a pre-existing non-portability, and may be irrelevant, if you are willing to require that the only people likely to make a release tarball are using appropriate tools). --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --------------enig1D4C209CC7B7C0053BA52B98 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQ53bGAAoJEKeha0olJ0Nq7BAH/iAXCOk5URD2hR+OqP5QWUak jT5ootIws3rrdfu0uOAaOQ0a7TVXxwh/MnCTbJ9buzB3XfHmaA7NckI8vUv4e1bc hfgk/UnJgXHVwLuZIUtWZswgp94Pjdt/7PuB8Vtsl3dUJiXvxfBkarNo15cVZyO9 y+mFNhW4t9PeDEQFi1lM/XZEMzhJg61crvG1QIo9v+wLU7a/tmieEsGSBWc31cDr tRb0V6nC0QXzDyBtOK9ef+DHH+f/nQZPvVm4VeKeNaBTv/pVxZ7/yCMIS9IgF48E vnfLEJ6vESdPieUSYafIzClFgBorW9kcA1Zp96tihBB8O+/ym3hZamm2e8G2MBE= =4F5v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig1D4C209CC7B7C0053BA52B98--