Re: Debian vs. Red Hat
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:01:18PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:19:14AM -0400, Chris Gray (cgray@nowonder.com) wrote:
> > > It is my experience most people feel whatever they are familiar with is the
> > > best for situation. I don't think I know *that* much about debian. I do
> > > know .deb is worlds better than .rpm. When it comes to debian, you are
> > > talking to the choir.
> >
> > However, dpkg is worlds slower and takes up worlds more memory than rpm.
>
> ...and buys you much more in the bargain.
>
> Would you rather spend the extra few seconds loading the
> /var/lib/dpkg/status file or the hours resolving RPM dependencies? It's
> been suggested that apt be reworked to cache the status file to a
> database format for faster loading and access. Note that when
> processing multiple packages, dpkg loads the status file only once
> (apt-get, however, doesn't).
Right. I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also
a lot slower. It would be nice to write it with a binary database.
Maybe when I have extra time.
I'm not trying to pick on dpkg, just saying that it lags behind rpm in
some areas. But I do prefer it to rpm.
Cheers,
Chris
Reply to: