Paul Nasrat wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 09:11 +0100, Andy Green wrote: >> Panu Matilainen wrote: >> >>> Expect memory use go up, dramatically. That's the price to pay for >>> finally "fixing" the multilib %doc etc file removal bug by nuking >>> the nasty skipDir hack that caused it to begin with. Whether we can >>> actually live with the ballooned memory usage, especially in the >>> installer, remains to be seen... >> Of the two issues, surely memory use is the worst? > > Many people seem to disagree. I guess those 'many' people aren't installing and updating on low end machines from a couple of years ago. >> I installed F7 on my >> in-laws' old laptop with 256MB last week, it did install okay because I >> took the precaution of turning everything except the most basic stuff >> off (including X), then yumming it in afterwards. Previously I upgraded >> FC5 on a 384MB box and it took most of the day. Are the "dramatic" >> increases only seen in the multilib case itself? That wouldn't be so >> bad since x86_64 boxes will have lots of memory... > > No the issue is not purely on multilib occurs with multiple identical > basenames - eg multiple kernels, COPYING etc. What I meant is, if the increases in memory footprint are only seen when libraries from multiple arches are actually being dealt with, it wouldn't be a regression for the older x86 boxes with relatively low memory, nor such a problem for x86_64 boxes which typically have lots of memory. But if the price in memory for solving a multilib issue has to be paid for even when a single arch is all there is, that would be more painful since already struggling low memory single-arch boxes have to pay it for no benefit to them. -Andy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
