rawhide report: 20050405 changes

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 21:20 +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
> tir, 05.04.2005 kl. 17.35 skrev seth vidal:
> > >   Is that worth adding yet another XML Parser package to the distribution
> > > used by a single tool ? Is there a compatibility layer to still use
> > > libxml2 ? 
> > >   If I remember correctly, the performance problem wasn't libxml2 itself
> > > but the specific usage within yum, i.e. collecting the data, libxml2 by
> > > itself is parsing the megabyte sized file in less than a tenth of a second.
> > > I'm surprized the solution ends up going to use a python specific library
> > > instead of trying to find why the interface between libxml2 and yum generated
> > > that problem. I don't remember you saying you would switch library as a result.
> > 
> > well what happened was this:
> >  Icon was working on repoview and decided to try out CelementTree b/c he
> > was using kid anyway and it used it. After some preliminary tests it
> > showed up as significantly faster parsing the metadata. For
> > primary.xml.gz the times went from 21s for 1800ish pkgs to 7s. Then when
> > he switched it to use iterparse() the memory footprint dropped below 10M
> > for the whole parse.
> > 
> wow. That's just... amazing!
> 
> Anyway: How large are the package in question? After all, yum is a
> pretty "core" package. It's not some obscure fringe thingy. So adding
> *one* package to support it can't be all that bad?
> 
> After all, didn't OOo (another non-fringe package) pretty much cause
> Java to be included?

No, OOo only requires gcc-java and libgcj, nothing else.  Eclipse was
the big thing that pulls in all the real java support libraries.

Dan