On 8 July 2010 18:04, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>> > It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the "target"
>> > rpm in memory at all. The "source" rpm can be l
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the "target"
> > rpm in memory at all. The "source" rpm can be limited to some
> > max size with the down side that
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the "target"
> rpm in memory at all. The "source" rpm can be limited to some
> max size with the down side that the end of the "target" rpm
> cannot match the start of the "source
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 10:26 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:48:44PM +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > I would like to allow deltarpm to split both old and new rpms into block
> > and delta each block separately, but it would involve some very creative
> > reworking on h
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:48:44PM +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> I would like to allow deltarpm to split both old and new rpms into block
> and delta each block separately, but it would involve some very creative
> reworking on how deltarpm uses pseudo-files for all of it's work (see
> cfile.[ch]
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 04:35:42PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of >= 100MB
> > which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
> > generation is to expensi
I'm with Christopher, this topic is a bit outside my realm of knowledge but
I would be willing to donate monitarily to those who are willing and able.
This actually brings up something a bit more, but would a "Vote with your
dollars" bounty system be possible? Such that users donate money to an id
On 12 June 2010 16:48, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 16:35 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> > We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of >= 100MB
>> > which kind of makes it useless for this case but it
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 16:35 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of >= 100MB
> > which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
> > generation is to expensive to d
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 16:24 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
> You don't seem to be working all that good!
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing this. In particular:
>
> Transaction Summary
>
> Install 1 Pack
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 16:35, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of >= 100MB
>> which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
>> generation is to expensive to do for
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> We don't generate deltas for packages with a size of >= 100MB
> which kind of makes it useless for this case but it seems that delta
> generation is to expensive to do for such large packages on the re-eng
> boxes.
It's because the pr
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Christopher Brown
wrote:
> You don't seem to be working all that good!
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing this. In particular:
>
> Transaction Summary
>
> Install 1 Package
You don't seem to be working all that good!
I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing this. In particular:
Transaction Summary
Install 1 Package(s)
Upgrade 85 Package(s)
Total download size: 207 M
Is this ok [
14 matches
Mail list logo
