[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Please rebuild your packages in the development tree of Fedora Extras



On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 19:19 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 16:29 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 07:07 -0800, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> the repoquery isn't enough to provide the necessary information to
> > > >> learn about dependancy chains to allow for maintainer coordination?
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > [Personal side-note: I hate repoquery.
> > > 
> > > Heh, care to elaborate? I'm open to suggestions you know :)
> > 
> > Speed, usability, package deps (of yum and yum-utils).
> 
> Speed and dependencies I can't help directly, usability suggestions are
> most welcome. Repoquery started with some sort of "rpm -q" compatibility
> in mind and that's why it's the way it is. Suggestions are most welcome,
> the rpm -q compatibility is an illusion at best anyway.
> 
> > > > It's way less useable than its apt-get counterparts]
> > > 
> > > What apt-get counterparts?
> > 
> > apt-get build-dep
> > apt-get --build source
> > 
> > Do you need anything else?
> 
> Repoquery isn't inteded for that, so no wonder you don't like it for
> these purposes :)
I am using "apt-get build-deps" and "apt-get source" as "poor man's fast
mock/package depchecker" and as part of scripts for local mass rebuilds
(Basically the same working principle as mach used to use, but without
the chroot).

> > rpm -U package.src.rpm
> > edit package.spec
> > [rebuild package]
> > 
> > This even works sufficiently well on underpowered machines with low
> > bandwidth connections, and is much less resource demanding than yum is.
> 
> I haven't done any actual comparisons memory-wise between apt and yum in
> long time,
Neither have I. Half a year ago or so, yum's memory requirements were
highly sensible on my old i586/166MHz 64MB notebook (Very slow HD w/o
DMA). The typical "yum update w/ FC and FE enabled" was in the 1/2+
hours range.

Trying an upgrade from an older FC to a newer FC (IIRC it was FC3->FC4)
took ca 4 hours per yum invocation (until it finally aborted with
unresolvable deps). The primary cause for this slowlyness obviously had
been yum's memory requirement, which had caused this machine to swap
permanently.

Meanwhile, yum's memory requirements seem to have shrunk, because now
(FC4/FE4 + all updates) a "yum update" doesn't cause this machine to
swap anymore and yum/apt's turn-around times are in the same magnitude.

>  but yum >= 2.4 has far lower memory requirements than it used
> to have, thanks to sqlite. 
Yes, with yum-2.4, yum finally became usable on my old notebook ;)

Ralf



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]