On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:21:15PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:53:18PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:49:29PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:11:40AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > >> > > So that's a factor of 25ish more data in the Requires list. No, thanks. > >> > > >> > I'm assuming your argument is that you don't want to ship RPMs or > >> > repositories where part of them grows to be 25x larger. > >> > > >> > But this need not be the case. Observe that the packages already > >> > contain the data (in the libraries and binaries themselves). > >> > >> That data is in the RPM payload though. The YUM depsolving code > >> does not have any of the RPM payloads available - it is still > >> trying to figure out which it needs. So at least the YUM repodata > >> will grow in size significantly, even if the RPMs themselves did > >> not. > > > > I'm not arguing that's how yum works now, but it doesn't have to work > > that way! > > > > It could incrementally download the RPMs during depsolving, test that > > they work together, and with that information download further > > packages as necessary ... > > Ugh no ... the whole point of the repodata is to avoid having to > download the rpms to calculate deps. Well the "whole" point is to get the best possible software quality, user experience and performance (accepting that we cannot maximize all of these at the same time). It's my personal opinion that yum does not do well on any of these three criteria. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
