| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:26:48 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.33-rc7 On 02/06/2010 02:49 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Of course, if you really care about bandwidth, you're better off just > fetching the git trees instead, but the question for non-git users is: > > Would it be ok to _only_ have the 'bz2' patches and tar-balls? > > Having two copies of every large file seems silly, if nobody really > requires the traditional .gz format.. > Please don't do that right now! First of all, we don't back up .bz2 files, since they are all autogenerated. We're currently about to figure out how to manage the transition to .xz on kernel.org. At the moment, I personally prefer the notion of removing the .bz2 files (as opposed to .gz) in favor of .xz for two reasons: a) the .gz files are the current original content. b) gzip is a lot faster than bzip2, but xz is as fast or faster than bzip2 for decompression. bzip2 is bigger than xz and slower, and so it doesn't have any unique reason to exist. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists