On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 12:05 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, 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 :) > >> > >> Lam > > > > 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) > > Apt works on x86_64 nowadays but can't handle some cross-arch cases > like upgrading from 32bit to 64bit version (eg OOo changed from 32bit to > 64bit between fc5 to fc6). Yum's bi-arch support is lightyears ahead > anyway :) > > > FYI I'm using Debian unstable which has comparable number of packages. > > Debian apt is not comparable at all due to differences in package and > repository metadata differences; Debian uses flat text files whereas we > have rather heavyweight XML to wrestle with. > > - Panu - > Solution wise - yes, yum and apt are different - but target-wise, they both designed to serve the same purpose. Question is - can yum be optimized (E.g. by replacing the XML parser to a faster/leaner one) - bringing it to a point where the performance difference between Debian's apt and Fedora's yum is less staggering? (Especially in query tasks) - Gilboa -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
