Previously Keith G. Murphy wrote: > I must say, my subjective experience has been that rpm's are much faster > to install something. Of course, it's also faster to throw my clothes > on the floor, rather than put them in the hamper... That is a result of the fact that rpm uses a binary database for its data, while dpkg uses a large number of text-files instead. The advantage of that is that it is robust (if a single file gets corrupted it's not much of a problem), and that it is possible to fix or modify things by hand using a normal text editor if needed. Apt uses a mixed approach: it uses the same textfiles as dpkg but uses a binary cache to also get the advantages of a binary database. Wichert. -- _________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgppe6r9LXxMl.pgp
Description: PGP signature