GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 552868
Compress Locations.xml files (?)
Last modified: 2009-01-31 14:52:28 UTC
% du -s /usr/share/libgweather 46M /usr/share/libgweather % ls /usr/share/libgweather | xargs -i bash -c "gzip -9 < /usr/share/libgweather/{} > {}" % du -s . 8,0M . tar cjf /tmp/gwea.tb2 /usr/share/libgweather % du -s /tmp/gwea.tb2 4,4M /tmp/gwea.tb2 Bootomline: There are ways to compress libgweather files. Definitely! As (with the current GNOME installed), libgweather is one of the hugest packages, it's worthy to compress locations data. Hint: use libz on the files.
Created attachment 121495 [details] [review] Patch to gzip Locations.xml files It's relatively easy to compress all the data files. Some data: ${datadir}/libgweather size (uncompressed): 77 MB ${datadir}/libgweather size (compressed): 14 MB rpm size (uncompressed): 4 MB rpm size (compressed): 14 MB I didn't do any performance measure, but it doesn't feel slower when it's compressed. I'm actually surprised the we lose that much in the package size. That's not that useful for distros if they want to create live cds... Dan, what do you think?
(In reply to comment #1) > rpm size (uncompressed): 4 MB > rpm size (compressed): 14 MB Um... I think you did something wrong. I'm getting 13.2M uncompressed and 13.5M compressed. (Maybe the uncompressed RPM you were comparing against used the single XML file instead of multiple?) The patch looks good to me.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > rpm size (uncompressed): 4 MB > > rpm size (compressed): 14 MB > > Um... I think you did something wrong. I'm getting 13.2M uncompressed and 13.5M > compressed. (Maybe the uncompressed RPM you were comparing against used the > single XML file instead of multiple?) Nope, it did contain the multiple files. But we're using lzma in openSUSE now, so that could explain the difference. I'm actually more surprised by your results than by mine :-) Anyway, it's low maintenance, so I guess we can commit this. I prefer to aim at 2.25, but if you think it should be in 2.24, feel free to commit it now.
i'm fine with 2.25. and on that note, is there any reason to not branch now?
This problem has been fixed in the development version. The fix will be available in the next major software release. Thank you for your bug report.
Why do you prefer gzip over bzip2? Seems that bz2 compresses even more the files Thanks for the info :-)
(In reply to comment #6) > Why do you prefer gzip over bzip2? Seems that bz2 compresses even more the > files Because libxml transparently does the gzip handling for us :-)
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Why do you prefer gzip over bzip2? Seems that bz2 compresses even more the > > files > > Because libxml transparently does the gzip handling for us :-) And because the difference between gzip and bz2 in this case is fairly small.
OK, I didn't know that Thanks :-D