Message-Id: <200002252257.RAA25975@delorie.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: "Parker, Ron" To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Cc: "'dj AT delorie DOT com'" Subject: RE: Installation Routine Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:00:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Spell [mailto:glenn AT gs DOT fay DOT nc DOT us] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 4:40 PM To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Installation Routine > So... personally, I see no problem with Ron using bzip2. I > suspect that these files will be served via ftp anyway so Apache > configuration would not even enter into the equation. Just to clarify. My question was more about what format the packages being served by Cygnus might take. The preview that DJ put up had .tar.gz files. I was curious if he had considered using .tar.bz2 files or not. Personally I can deal with either or both in the setup program. The code changes for me would be minimal. It was more a question of reducing load on the Cygnus servers. Remember the last net release and how hard it was to get into the servers? No doubt the CYGWIN audience has grown since then. Using bzip2 tends to trim 10-20% more off of compressed tar files than gzip. Reducing the load on a network by 10% can have a much larger than 10% impact on performance due to decreasing packet collisions. However any potential gains would be mitigated if the servers were supplying incorrect MIME information causing the browser to do CR-CR/LF conversion or opening the file as an HTML page. I'll go with whatever distribution format DJ and the rest of the Cygnus, er Redhat, crew decide.