A word on package management

J French me at semitekie.com
Sat May 26 08:33:30 UTC 2007

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> J French (me at semitekie.com) said: 
>> Package management could be greatly sped up if the header files were 
>> split into two separate files, one containing only the package's 
>> version, dependencies and conflicts and the other containing all of the 
>> information that people don't normally look at (license, author, 
>> changelog, etc)
> I suggest you look at the contents of the primary xml files in the
> repodata as opposed to other.xml and filelists.xml...
> Bill
yeah exactly. How much of that information is really required to update 
a system? To give a small example (right off the top):
<package type="rpm">
<version epoch="0" ver="1.2.9" rel="8.1"/>
<checksum type="sha" 
<summary>OpenSSL crypto plugin for XML Security Library</summary>
OpenSSL plugin for XML Security Library provides OpenSSL based crypto 
for the xmlsec library
Red Hat, Inc. <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
<time file="1160095638" build="1152759006"/>
<size package="81421" installed="213672" archive="214124"/>
<location href="Fedora/RPMS/xmlsec1-openssl-1.2.9-8.1.x86_64.rpm"/>
<rpm:vendor>Red Hat, Inc.</rpm:vendor>
<rpm:header-range start="440" end="5936"/>
<rpm:provides />
<rpm:requires />

Much of this information is useless to anyone but a developer for or 
against a given package - things like packager, build host, even the 
description. If a user wants to see these, they should get the info from 
the secondary file. While this may not seem like a lot, it would make a 
difference if the user happens to be installing a lot of packages. IMO 
it should be as efficient as possible.

Not sure why I said changelog, but you get the idea.

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list