From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 26355 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2020 21:41:55 -0000 Received: from bsd.lv (HELO mandoc.bsd.lv) (66.111.2.12) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Nov 2020 21:41:55 -0000 Received: from fantadrom.bsd.lv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 6fd4015e for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.aisha.cc (mail.aisha.cc [108.61.81.40]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 818a4a4a for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:41:48 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aisha.cc; s=excisionRSA; t=1606686107; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ObPUWOSRfhJsC7rTayCcjQSbQ6Z3A/v0zoxjo394y9s=; b=X0WX06CYneDF8nEN0tIrZ8Lds6nHCL2eWuYqsUuN5Wr1llUhpCYFgWGQpvvnq8Q6IbGK8I xreZ+JGJ0PnDsxVuNC7bZ3OY+kZRhnzeMHgKGHAZitsEfpo5amU8Q4BJXGXmub73DhkPO2 ZWio0aWSWQ+cSPKM6uvDt6CpZ2CPVZy2ZCT1fKOEUpJSJ8QuI2G76mNcl/4uz6LYy4aVzD nriMN5/kwCQAygKBcjKBDctuM3gTXu/jtp6eccFG0Zdmx/eiKHsTz4EaKR3tzjC9sGh7Wn J11awHx4/etzlvjpmw3ircsVjXURt+dH0bZU2t6jOTemhG5v4uW1/pfS0sukSQ== Received: from [192.168.1.129] (c-73-215-141-174.hsd1.nj.comcast.net [73.215.141.174]) by mail.aisha.cc (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 580232d3 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) auth=yes user=aisha@aisha.cc; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) To: Ingo Schwarze Cc: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv References: <20201129201424.GI58187@athene.usta.de> From: Aisha Tammy Organization: aisha.cc Subject: Re: Possible to add optional bzip2 support? Message-ID: <8f73d02e-6a2a-0549-a578-091ce7cedb48@aisha.cc> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:41:45 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 X-Mailinglist: mandoc-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201129201424.GI58187@athene.usta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11/29/20 3:14 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Aisha, > > Aisha Tammy wrote on Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:37:44AM -0500: > >> I'm trying to get Gentoo to add mandoc as an alternative man provider >> as an optional replacement for the current man-db. Currently, we only allow >> man-db as the man provider. I've successfully managed to get the changes >> and have already made the PR (hopefully, barring anything extra ordinary, it >> should go through). > > Nice, thanks. > >> Currently, we compress all our man pages with bzip2 by default > > Why? > > Compressing manual pages makes absolutely no sense to me in 2020. > > This is on one of my desktop machines where i have large amounts of > cruft installed for testing: > > $ du -sh /usr/share/man /usr/X11R6/man /usr/local/man > 41.8M /usr/share/man > 9.0M /usr/X11R6/man > 69.9M /usr/local/man > > Here are a few other directories for comparison: > > 88.3M /usr/local/share/emacs > 71.2M /usr/local/share/gtk-doc > 209M /usr/local/share/doc > 273M /usr/local/share/locale > 209M /usr/local/lib/firefox > 218M /usr/local/lib/thunderbird > 609M /usr/local/lib/libreoffice > > So all the manual pages on a system, even if they are uncompressed > and even if a lot of stuff is installed, typically need a small > fraction of the space needed by a single modern application program. > > Asked the other way around, who cares, in 2020, about 0.05 GB of disk > space on the /usr/ partition? Or even, when installing insane amounts > of optional software, about maybe 0.2 or so GB? > > How are such totally negligible gains worth any kind of trouble? > > Sometimes, people told me "but we want to install unchanged on > embedded systems and there 50 MB are a big deal". I have a hard > time believing that. If a given embedded system really has trouble > with disk space for 50 MB of manual pages, then it is virtually > certain that you cannot install a modern general-purpose operating > system to it without changes in the first place. And it almost > certainly isn't a system where users want to log in interactively > and read manual pages. HAHA!! This is exactly what I expected, down to the T :D And I am not saying this maliciously AT ALL, this is what I my feelings were, albeit on the fence. Just wanted to ask in the off chance that somehow, magically, this was a sane option (its not) :P > >> and none of them are usable with mandoc, a small amount of scripting >> is needed to recompress all man pages and this also messes up the >> package manager and over all is a bit ugly. I am unsure how bad/hard >> it is to add bzip2 support but is there any hope of it being >> added as an option? even if it is not available by default? > > It would be easier to convince me to delete *.gz support than to > add *.bz2 support. Either is unrelated to the purpose of mandoc > and linking to zlib is ugly and messy, i'd love to get rid of the > dependency and of the rather ugly and error-prone code needed to > support *.gz files. > > Regarding *.bz2 in particular, i see very little chance to get > /usr/lib/libbz2.so.*.* added to the OpenBSD base system. > > Regarding options, i think options are evil in general. If you > want an option, you need very good arguments why the feature is > useful to such an ususual degree that it justifies an option. > Here, i don't see any benefit at all to offset the cost in > dependencies, complexity, and maintenance. > These are all perfectly valid reasons and I agree. I agree with not needing this and am totally fine without it :) Thanks a lot! Aisha PS: Would it be possible to get a minor(or whatever) release to address the bug fixes (iirc html fixes were some) and building with gcc-10 ? > Yours, > Ingo > -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv