Andreas Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > This makes me seriously doubt that rpm-md is designed or even suitable > for such huge repositories. It's not surprising that parsing this beast > is slow, even with a fast parser. It also makes me doubt that improving > the parser is the only way of approaching the problem.
I agree with this conclusion. xml is nice but it shows it limits here. > So I thought how to reduce the number of packages: > > - Separate repositories per architecture - not possible because SUSE > repositories have always been multiarch. We could - no problem at all. It would increase the space since all source and noarch packages would need to be duplicated. We love to have one ;-) > - Separate repositories for source packages - bad idea IMHO. > > - Reducing the number of packages - not possible, people want to have > more software and not less. > > The debuginfo packages sounded like a reasonable candidate to me because > their number is always proportional to the number of binary packages. If > we get a new architecture like ia64, we get more debuginfo packages as > well, which means we can also save proportionally by splitting them from > the rest. > > Note also that we already have performance workarounds. Using the old > susetags metadata instead of rpm-md during initial installation is one > of them. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
pgpKJ5N9qU5ek.pgp
Description: PGP signature
