Bug 338631

Summary:	Use ZPAQ instead of LZMA for portage tree snapshots.
Product:	Portage Development	Reporter:	dE <de.techno>
Component:	Enhancement/Feature Requests	Assignee:	Portage team <dev-portage>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX
Severity:	enhancement	CC:	mgorny
Priority:	High
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---
Bug Depends on:	278021
Bug Blocks:

Description dE 2010-09-25 02:12:57 UTC

Since the size of portage is growing fast, higher compression makes sense.

ZPAQ is the most efficient, powerful and flexible (verity in compression levels) compression algorithm; the standard portage tarball can be compressed to 22 mb using 'mid.conf'.

First zpaq needs to be put in portage, then this will be possible.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1 Michał Górny archtester

2010-09-25 08:39:22 UTC

Don't think that's going to happen. LZ* variants have a big advantage over PAQ* in decompression speed.

Comment 2 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2010-09-25 16:10:29 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> Since the size of portage is growing fast, higher compression makes sense.

Is it? Got any numbers?

> ZPAQ is the most efficient, powerful and flexible (verity in compression
> levels) compression algorithm; the standard portage tarball can be compressed
> to 22 mb using 'mid.conf'.

Again we need numbers, comparing one against the other.

> First zpaq needs to be put in portage, then this will be possible.

Right.

Comment 3 dE 2010-10-08 04:16:25 UTC

There's a major problem with zpaq... it cant compress directories, the user will have to extract the zpaq archive and then the extracted tar (off which the zpaq archive was made) making it cumbersome.