3 ms·
For me, the thing that's missing from the article is the 'so what?' If Linux package managers were faster then <it would affect me how?>
by 4ndrewl 7y ago
For me, the thing that's missing from the article is the 'so what?'
If Linux package managers were faster then <it would affect me how?>
- ricardo81 7y agoAgreed! Free software and the complaint is you cannot download it faster than an Encyclopedia Britannica once a second. You can customise the sources, pay attention to what you want installed/upgraded... or even run a mirror Someone else mentioned concurrent downloads which sounds like a good idea, otherwise... thankful.
- rwmj 7y agoI'd be happier with not having to wait so long for dnf metadata to download all the time. Pretty much my job (at Red Hat!) is to wait for it a lot of the time.
- curt15 7y agoIsn't the main reason dnf metadata is so massive that it contains the filelists of every package in repository? No other package manager requires that information to work. Does anyone else at Red Hat (such as the dnf developers) consider the metadata size a major problem?
- rwmj 7y agoThe filelists are a good thing since they let you do: dnf install /usr/share/mypackage/file However they are not downloaded if you're just installing a package by name (even for dependencies) which is what this test is all about.
- curt15 7y agoThen what constitutes the bulk of the metadata? I seem to recall it being much smaller back in the days of yum (~20mb), and the number of packages in the repository has not ballooned that much since then.