On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. OK, but your suggestion does not really make the overall experience any better (it does the opposite). -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
