linux-kernel - Re: Smaller compressed kernel source tarballs?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20060921193823.ec49d446.seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:38:23 -0400
From:	Sean <seanlkml@...patico.ca>
To:	David Lang <dlang@...italinsight.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Dax Kelson <dax@...ulabs.com>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: Smaller compressed kernel source tarballs?

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
David Lang <dlang@...italinsight.com> wrote:

> I was responding to the (apparent) argument that with git and ketchup people 
> should not ever be downloading tarballs, so something that cuts the size of a 
> tarball in half doesn't make any difference.

Sure there are some cases where tarballs are more appropriate, but with git
and maybe some of the other tools it should really be the minority situation.
I wonder how many people just use tarballs out of inertia.  All said though
saving a few bytes of bandwidth by making the tarballs smaller can't hurt.

Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/