On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 2, 2018 2:44:19 AM CET stan wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:29:45 -0000
>> "Farhad Mohammadi Majd" <farhadbenya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Hello, in Debian (9, stable), size of all the official repositories
>> > metadata is maximum 10MB, while in Fedora, today I ran "dnf update"
>> > for first time after installing Fedora 27
>> > (Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-27-1.6) and it took 20+58MB for two
>> > official repositories!
>> > It is really too high, why there is such difference? why don't
>> > optimize it and fix this problem?
>> I don't have any intimate knowledge of this. But you are comparing
>> apples and oranges. Apt and dnf. Either the format of the meta data
>> must be very different for the two, or apt must send much less meta
> Yes, IMO the amount of information in metadata creates the difference.
>> You aren't alone in complaining about this. Whenever an update occurs,
>> all the meta data has to be downloaded again. People on limited
>> quantity connections find this onerous. There has been discussion of
>> making the meta data update an incremental update, but the format of
>> meta data doesn't lend itself well to doing this. And the delta files
>> would put a lot of extra files on repo hosts.
> I doubt delta files for metadata would cause significant storage problems
> (compare that with the size of RPMs). You don't have to keep the deltas
> forever, it would be matter of quality of implementation..
> Do we have some RFE bug for this, or some feature page? This is #1 issue in
> yum/dnf world for quite some time.
There's an ongoing discussion in rpm-ecosystem@ and
infrastructure@ about an optimized delta repodata format. So...
It's coming. :)
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org