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

[Andrew Wiley]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jimmy Cao <jcao219 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Ah, then I suppose I'm a liar and/or delusional. I remember opening one on
Windows with some archiver, but I've only ever done it a few times, and not
on a box I have access to at the moment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20110628/aec5b197/attachment.html>