On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:04:13PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > still noticed a great difference between Sarge and Etch in terms of > dpkg, apt, and aptitude performance; it is far more sluggish with Etch
my very partial experience points to the binaries (perhaps the version of the compliler and the c/c++ libraries more than the source code of dpkg, apt, and aptitude) and their memory usage more than the quantity of packages from sources.list (which can have lines for more than one among .../woody/sarge/etch/... and use preferences to install from only one of them. But there is a harcoded limit to maximum the number of packages that apt can see before starting to exit with "E: Wow, you exceeded the number of versions this APT is capable of." as one can see from the database of open bugs) Has someone done more precise tests to understand the cause of this loss of performance? Has someone done tests with dpkg, apt, and aptitude compiled against uclibc or dietlibc? (In woody's times there were on the net a recompliation of a self-contained part of a debian system using dietlibc intead of glibc. Things like this might be even more useful now for users of less powerful hardware) -- Chi usa software non libero avvelena anche te. Digli di smettere. Informatica=arsenico: minime dosi in rari casi patologici, altrimenti letale. Informatica=bomba: intelligente solo per gli stupidi che ci credono. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
