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

Re: A word on package management

Bill Nottingham wrote:
J French (me semitekie com) said:
Package management could be greatly sped up if the header files were split into two separate files, one containing only the package's version, dependencies and conflicts and the other containing all of the information that people don't normally look at (license, author, changelog, etc)

I suggest you look at the contents of the primary xml files in the
repodata as opposed to other.xml and filelists.xml...


yeah exactly. How much of that information is really required to update a system? To give a small example (right off the top):
<package type="rpm">
<version epoch="0" ver="1.2.9" rel="8.1"/>
<checksum type="sha" pkgid="YES">1424111620a512224a3456b34cd910e8bbc16ccc</checksum>
<summary>OpenSSL crypto plugin for XML Security Library</summary>
OpenSSL plugin for XML Security Library provides OpenSSL based crypto services
for the xmlsec library
Red Hat, Inc. <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
<time file="1160095638" build="1152759006"/>
<size package="81421" installed="213672" archive="214124"/>
<location href="Fedora/RPMS/xmlsec1-openssl-1.2.9-8.1.x86_64.rpm"/>
<rpm:vendor>Red Hat, Inc.</rpm:vendor>
<rpm:header-range start="440" end="5936"/>
<rpm:provides />
<rpm:requires />

Much of this information is useless to anyone but a developer for or against a given package - things like packager, build host, even the description. If a user wants to see these, they should get the info from the secondary file. While this may not seem like a lot, it would make a difference if the user happens to be installing a lot of packages. IMO it should be as efficient as possible.

Not sure why I said changelog, but you get the idea.

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