5 ms·
I haven't used Fedora since 2015 or so, but at the time, I always felt DNF to be very slow or heavyweight. For example, I remember installing one random small p
by severino 5y ago
I haven't used Fedora since 2015 or so, but at the time, I always felt DNF to be very slow or heavyweight. For example, I remember installing one random small package with few or no dependency installs at all could take something between 30 seconds and more than one minute, while apt-get would usually install the thing in a breeze. I wonder if this has changed.
- smarx007 5y agoAh, but 'dnf install' does also what 'apt-get update' does when necessary. So, dnf is faster for me than 'apt-get update && apt-get install'. I think there is a flag you can alias to force disable updating repos. Though the delay is rare for me.
- mroche 5y agoThe flag you're thinking of is '-C | --cacheonly'. It is very useful for doing stuff like 'dnf [search|rq|list|etc...]', but it is not allowed with upgrade/install type runs. dnf will do a check when running subcommands like 'install' to see if it _needs_ to update the cache data (as you noted), it won't always do it. There are a few factors that play in, but you can also adjust the cache expiry time in dnf.conf.
- vondur 5y agoI believe some of the default settings for DNF are to blame. Editing the dnf.conf file to allow for more simultaneous downloads and selecting the closest mirrors can really speed it up.
- tapoxi 5y agoSince 2015 they've been moving logic over to libdnf, which is written in C instead of Python.
- curt15 5y agoThat's because dnf metadata is massive compared to apt's. If you're installing something on Fedora for the first time, dnf needs to download about 100mb of metadata.