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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 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
