On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 07:59:55PM -0400, seth vidal alleged: > On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 19:09 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > I'm sure this 500 package transaction could have been replaced by hundred > > of smaller transactions where: > > - the amount of disk space required is smaller > > - the risk of damage due to a failing transaction is limited > > - current transaction and download of the next packages could be > > parallelized > > > > Agreed, I didn't put code on the table, just the ideas so far. > > two questions: > 1. does up2date do anything differently for this interaction? Just to throw this out there... urpmi always breaks things up to the smallest possible transactions. -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/attachments/20040923/051c3afe/attachment.bin
