7z (Was: 64 bit DMD binary on the Mac)

Andrew Wiley wiley.andrew.j at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 19:05:49 PDT 2011


On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> "Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote in message
> news:iudhf9$2dr9$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > On 2011-06-28 15:39:42 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>
> > said:
> >
> >> On 6/28/2011 12:13 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >>> Since most of the applications and most the libraries (basically all
> >>> that ships
> >>> with Mac OS X) are universal there's usually no problem of
> >>> running/building both
> >>> 32 and 64bit software.
> >>
> >> I'll explain the motivation for 64 bit only DMD binaries:
> >>
> >> 1. It cuts the testing time in half. This is a significant deal for me,
> >> as adding another hour to the test cycle slows things down a lot.
> >>
> >> 2. It speeds downloading the dmd package.
> >>
> >> The only reason to have a 32 bit binary is if there are x86 Macs 10.5 or
> >> later that are incapable of running 64 bit code.
> >
> > Well, you could ship the next DMD version 64-bit only and of you get
> > complains you bring back the 32-bit version as a universal binary.
> >
> > But you'll definitely rule out users of Apple's early Intel computers. I
> > think the last Apple model with a 32-bit CPU was the "Mac Mini (Late
> > 2006)", which was replaced mid 2007 with a Core 2 Duo model.
> >
> > As for increasing the download speed, you could try one of these too:
> >
> > * separate per-OS packages
> > * separate source package
> > * separate documentation package
> > * faster server
>
> * use 7z
>
> Using 7z instead of zip or tarballs has shrunk the size of my packaged
> Goldie releases down to roughly one-quarter the size of a zip or tar.bz2
> (Yes, ~75% decrease is size). Of course, that's probably an extreme case,
> but I just tried making a 7z of DMD 2.053, and it came out to just under
> 9MB
> (vs just over 15MB for the official zip release), so fairly close to half
> the size. Still pretty damn good.
>
> And I really see no reason why any programmer shouldn't have a 7z-capable
> extractor these days. Heck, it's pretty typical on Linux, and it's built
> into WinRar. Zip and tarballs are like MP3's: They're still everywhere, but
> only because of inertia, not because of any inherent merit, of which there
> really isn't any. 7z is like moving to Vorbis (Except that I think 7z
> support is probably more common than Vorbis support, which is unfortunate
> for Vorbis fans like me, but that's even more OT...).
>
>
>
Have you tried xz on Linux? I think WinRar supports it on Windows, but I
haven't checked in a while.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20110628/cae2ba15/attachment.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list