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

[Jimmy Cao]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>

I just tried using WinRAR to open a tar.xz file, and it didn't work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20110628/537d32e2/attachment-0001.html>