On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:17:04PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The slowdown is probably caused by not having enough memory. It's not apt
> > but dpkg that's horribly slow when you have 64 MB or less. See bug
> > #245970. Telling people that they should feed their system fewer packages
> > is just crap.
>
> Do you realize that a single release's package list is about 12 megabytes?
> You don't feed a program a dataset which takes up half your available memory
> by itself, and then complain that it can't keep it all in memory along with
> the rest of the system.
I do complain about that, because I think it is possible to change the
program so that it can keep the relevant part of that dataset in
memory most of the time.
> Certainly not for the marginal benefits of configuring apt this way.
For some people the benefit might be more than marginal. And it's dpkg
I'm talking about, not apt.
> > Dpkg should work in O(1) time (or O(log(N)), that's good enough too) per
> > package, not in O(N) time where N is the total number of packages on your
> > system.
>
> Sensible people should take more care with how they address others in a
> public forum.
What was unsensible about that, apart from the fact that you apparently
don't agree with me?
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <guus@sliepen.eu.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature