On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:36 AM Martin Pitt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Didier Roche [2015-08-12 12:29 +0200]:
> Le 12/08/2015 12:15, Martin Pitt a écrit :
> >Sebastien Bacher [2015-08-12 12:03 +0200]:
> >>Did anyone measure what difference with/without the png optimizer would
> >>make on the iso/standard install? Without numbers we can't really decide
> >>on the cost/benefit...
> >Back on natty it was ~ 5.5 MB (compressed size) gain with compressing
> >PNGs and 7 MB with compressing SVGs.
> > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint
> >There is no reason to believe that the numbers would be dramatically
> >different these days, i. e. you can expect a 10 to 15 MB gain on a
> >desktop ISO from this.
> Is that only iso/image size (so recompressed in the squashfs) or the gain of
> an ubuntu install itself, on disk?
As I said, "compressed size", i. e. squashfs/deb difference. PNGs
are already compressed so don't make much difference on an install;
SVGs will get quite a bit bigger uncompressed (but I don't have any
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
On the worst offenders, what about working with upstream to get the png optimizations submitted and accepted? When this happens set up an environment variable in debian/rules to indicate to skip optimization as it's not necessary.