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