Reducing Fedora memory footprint?

[Gilboa Davara]

On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 12:05 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:27 +0100, Leszek Matok wrote:
> >> Now you're comparing apples and oranges. I was talking about apt from
> >> Extras, using repomd repositories. You're comparing yum with Debian's
> >> apt with their repos (different number of files and packages; should be
> >> greater, but I don't know if "main" contains all their packages, or is
> >> it something like our "Core").
> >>
> >> apt-rpm also has its own repo format which is much faster to download
> >> and parse than repomd. You should check it out :)
> >>
> >> Lam
> >
> > I would have conducted an apt-rpm vs yum test, but I'm on x86_64, and
> > last time I checked, apt has lousy bi-arch support. (Did it improve)
> 
> Apt works on x86_64 nowadays but can't handle some cross-arch cases 
> like upgrading from 32bit to 64bit version (eg OOo changed from 32bit to 
> 64bit between fc5 to fc6). Yum's bi-arch support is lightyears ahead 
> anyway :)
> 
> > FYI I'm using Debian unstable which has comparable number of packages.
> 
> Debian apt is not comparable at all due to differences in package and 
> repository metadata differences; Debian uses flat text files whereas we 
> have rather heavyweight XML to wrestle with.
> 
>  	- Panu -
> 

Solution wise - yes, yum and apt are different - but target-wise, they
both designed to serve the same purpose.
Question is - can yum be optimized (E.g. by replacing the XML parser to
a faster/leaner one) - bringing it to a point where the performance
difference between Debian's apt and Fedora's yum is less staggering?
(Especially in query tasks)

- Gilboa