5 ms·

APT is written in C++ and YUM is written in Python. Besides the Python2->3 thing, are there actually any practical advantages to using a lower-level language f

APT is written in C++ and YUM is written in Python. Besides the Python2->3 thing, are there actually any practical advantages to using a lower-level language for managing packages?

Operyl 7y ago
I wasn't saying there was a disadvantage, I'm just giving a potential look into why it took longer than, say, Arch. Yum is a huge Python project, and it took a while to comb through it all.
- Conan_Kudo 7y ago
  It wasn't YUM that held back OpenMandriva's switch (OpenMandriva never used YUM), but some of the build infrastructure tools that wound up being replaced as part of the migration from urpmi to DNF. Those legacy tools never were updated for Python 3 because they had no maintainers or developers. When the distribution switched to DNF, they were able to adopt actively maintained software that replaced those that were ported to Python 3.
pletnes 7y ago
Pacman is, subjectively, the fastest package manager I’ve ever used. Not sure if it’s C vs python though, apt is also much slower on many tasks.
- 0xFFFE 7y ago
  Agreed, so is "apk" from Alpine Linux.
- massysett 7y ago
  This could easily be simply because Pacman doesn’t do as much as apt. For instance apt tracks symbols exported by shared libraries. Pacman doesn't.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    I've never heard of that. In what situations is that tracking used?
    - Conan_Kudo 7y ago
      As far as I know, only RPM-based package managers do symbol tracking at dependency resolution time. Neither Debian nor Arch package managers do this.
- meruru 7y ago
  I think Void's is faster. Less ergonomic though. Would be fun to see some benchmarks.
vkaku 7y ago
Yes, there is: A smaller binary and no external dependencies is more audit-able, has fewer dependencies for bootstrapping itself on a server or a container image. When you multiply this by the total number of images, this makes a big difference.

APT is written in C++ and YUM is written in Python. Besides the Python2->3 thing, are there actually any practical advantages to using a lower-level language for managing packages?

Operyl 7y ago

I wasn't saying there was a disadvantage, I'm just giving a potential look into why it took longer than, say, Arch. Yum is a huge Python project, and it took a while to comb through it all.

Conan_Kudo 7y ago
It wasn't YUM that held back OpenMandriva's switch (OpenMandriva never used YUM), but some of the build infrastructure tools that wound up being replaced as part of the migration from urpmi to DNF. Those legacy tools never were updated for Python 3 because they had no maintainers or developers. When the distribution switched to DNF, they were able to adopt actively maintained software that replaced those that were ported to Python 3.

pletnes 7y ago

Pacman is, subjectively, the fastest package manager I’ve ever used. Not sure if it’s C vs python though, apt is also much slower on many tasks.

0xFFFE 7y ago
Agreed, so is "apk" from Alpine Linux.
massysett 7y ago
This could easily be simply because Pacman doesn’t do as much as apt. For instance apt tracks symbols exported by shared libraries. Pacman doesn't.
- viraptor 7y ago
  I've never heard of that. In what situations is that tracking used?
  - Conan_Kudo 7y ago
    As far as I know, only RPM-based package managers do symbol tracking at dependency resolution time. Neither Debian nor Arch package managers do this.
meruru 7y ago
I think Void's is faster. Less ergonomic though. Would be fun to see some benchmarks.

vkaku 7y ago

Yes, there is: A smaller binary and no external dependencies is more audit-able, has fewer dependencies for bootstrapping itself on a server or a container image. When you multiply this by the total number of images, this makes a big difference.