libiconv & gettext (many)

[Nicholas Wourms]

nwourms@netscape.net wrote:

> cgf@redhat.com wrote:
[SNIP]
>> I had the same thought.  I don't have any problems with the gradual 
>> adoption
>> of /usr/share/man, as long as the "man" command works with it, of course.
>>
>> I wish we'd used /usr/share/man from the start, in fact.  Oh well.
>>
> 
> While we're at it, "It Would Be Nice" to start transitioning to bzip2 
> compressed manpages, now that our man supports them.  This wasn't so 
> much a problem when Cygwin had only a few packages, but now the man 
> directory is starting to get a little "bloated".  I'm not sure if our 
> texinfo/pinfo supports them, but bzip2ing the info's would be great as 
> well.  Just a thought...

To follow up on this, I've gathered some statics based on a COMPLETE 
install of all current and testing packages.  Bear in mind that I did 
this on FAT32, so the space savings won't be as good as it would be on 
NTFS.  Also note that I did NOT recompress the gzipped manpages from the 
manpages package in bzip2 format.

/usr/man before compression:
~18MB (~33MB on disk for FAT32)

/usr/man after compression with `bzip2 -9`:
~6MB (~22MB on disk for FAT32)

Again, NTFS will likely show better results, but the results still show 
the advantages clearly.  FWIW, I noticed absolutely no significant delay 
in displaying compressed manpages as compared to uncompressed manpages.

Cheers,
Nicholas