Re: PROPOSAL - REFORMULATED - Create alternative Packages files for each section
Ken Bloom <kabloom@ucdavis.edu> writes:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:11:02 -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Based on a previous thread on the same matter, I reformulated the
>> proposal I made earlier.
>>
>> Here it goes:
>>
>> PROPOSAL:
>> Create alternative Packages file for each section
>>
>> WHY?
>>
>> Today, the downloading and processing of the entire packages file is a
>> problem both for low-bandwidth users and for low-specs computers. In
>> fact, the download of the packages file for a modem user can take ~ 15
>> minutes, and the processing of this file by apt can take hours on a 486
>> 55Mhz with 8Mb RAM and 45Mb swap (self experience, actually I had to
>> cancel the processing after two or three hours).
>>
>> [Snipped the proposal, because my disagreement is with the premise]
>
> In the end, if your 486 can't handle downloading the packages file, how
> will it ever handle all of the changed debs it has to download. Don't run
> sid on it. Stable gets very few updates, so its packages file should
> actually be changed very infrequently (this time around, it only required
> only 3 downloads in 2 years). And there shouldn't be anywhere near enough
> security updates to bog down the system when that packages file has to be
> redownloaded.
It takes minutes to start up "apt-get install foobar", just parsing
the cached Packages file. For slow systems a smaller Packages file
means a faster apt and you realy don't want to run kde or gnome on
them anyway.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: