On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the target
rpm in memory at all. The source rpm can be limited to some
max size with the down side that the end of the target rpm
cannot match the start of the source rpm
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the target
rpm in memory at all. The source rpm can be limited to some
max size with the down side that the end
On 8 July 2010 18:04, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the target
rpm in memory at all. The source rpm can
I'm with Christopher, this topic is a bit outside my realm of knowledge but
I would be willing to donate monitarily to those who are willing and able.
This actually brings up something a bit more, but would a Vote with your
dollars bounty system be possible? Such that users donate money to an
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 04:35:42PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of = 100MB
which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
generation is to expensive to
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:48:44PM +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
I would like to allow deltarpm to split both old and new rpms into block
and delta each block separately, but it would involve some very creative
reworking on how deltarpm uses pseudo-files for all of it's work (see
cfile.[ch]
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 10:26 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:48:44PM +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
I would like to allow deltarpm to split both old and new rpms into block
and delta each block separately, but it would involve some very creative
reworking on how
On 12 June 2010 16:48, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 16:35 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of = 100MB
which kind of makes it useless for this case
You don't seem to be working all that good!
I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing this. In particular:
Transaction Summary
Install 1 Package(s)
Upgrade 85 Package(s)
Total download size: 207 M
Is this ok
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Christopher Brown
snecklif...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't seem to be working all that good!
I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing this. In particular:
Transaction Summary
Install
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of = 100MB
which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
generation is to expensive to do for such large packages on the re-eng
boxes.
It's because the
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 16:35, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of = 100MB
which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
generation is to expensive
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 16:24 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
You don't seem to be working all that good!
I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing this. In particular:
Transaction Summary
Install 1 Package(s)
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 16:35 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of = 100MB
which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
generation is to expensive to do for
14 matches
Mail list logo
