On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 08:42 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:27 +0100, Leszek Matok wrote: > > Now you're comparing apples and oranges. I was talking about apt from > > Extras, using repomd repositories. You're comparing yum with Debian's > > apt with their repos (different number of files and packages; should be > > greater, but I don't know if "main" contains all their packages, or is > > it something like our "Core"). > > > > apt-rpm also has its own repo format which is much faster to download > > and parse than repomd. You should check it out :) That's true. Accessing metadata repos (aka yum repos) with apt, causes apt to regress quite significantly "memory-footprint" wise in comparison to accessing apt-native repos. If you want to try it, set up yum and apt-repos containing rpms and try to access them with FE's apt (Or find an external repo which supports both apt and yum-repos.) This apt is supposed to support both styles of repos. >From what I have tested (on an i586/166MHz with 64MB RAM and FC6 installed) both, yum and apt using yum-repos, both end up with using comparable amounts of memory, with slight advantages for yum. > I would have conducted an apt-rpm vs yum test, but I'm on x86_64, and > last time I checked, apt has lousy bi-arch support. (Did it improve) The apt-version in FE should be able to handle bi-arched Fedora. > FYI I'm using Debian unstable which has comparable number of packages. Which doesn't mean much, because handling rpms and debs in apt are completely different code bases. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
