On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:46:36PM -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:06:52 -0200, Andreas Hasenack
<andreas(a)conectiva.com.br>
> They are less in size than what yum downloads, because the pkglist file
> used by apt doesn't have to list all files inside packages.
You are talking about apt for rpm here or are you basing this on
experience of using apt with debian packages? My understanding is
apt-rpm, I don't know about apt for debian.
.deb packages don't have a native understanding of 'file
dependancies'
where as .rpm packages do. My understanding is dated to mid 2003
Correct, rpm has file dependencies and many of them are automatic ones
(library sonames, for example)
which was the last time i read up on the differences between the
.deb
and .rpm packaging formats... so I might have an out of date
understanding,
Once you have explicit file dependancies like "Requires
/sbin/ldconfig" in packages you have to make some effort to grab the
file lists to be able to resolve that sort of requirement. How else
do you resolve file dependancies, if you don't have the per-package
file lists?
apt-rpm has a smaller file list. It doesn't include all package files, just
some like those in *bin* directories and libraries and some others which
I don't recall now.
And I'm pretty sure the metadata structures yum is using now
2.1.x
don't download all the filelists unless an exotic file dependancy has
to be met. I'm pretty sure that commonly used filelist information
(things like (/usr)/(s)bin/* , /etc/* and /var/lib/*) is stored in the
primary.xml metadata file.. while the full file lists (things like
/usr/share/docs/*) are kept in filelists.xml.
I was under the impression that the *rpm headers* yum downloaded would
contain all files inside the package. This is a somewhat two step update,
right? First it downloads this xml file and then the rpm headers. At
least seemed that way when I fired it up here with FC3. If not, then I
don't know what that 600kb "header" download from tetex contained.