apt vs yum

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 11:28, Noah Silva [Mailing list] wrote:
> > > I find it odd to hear that you (Justin) found yum to be slower than apt.
> > > It's my understanding that apt (for rpm) suffers from far more bloat and
> > > frankly sucks the life out of my old pentiums. But it's so damn
> > > effective and convenient, that I admin shy of two dozen redhat servers
> > > with it. Again, I've not tried YUM..
> >
> > I don't recall saying that yum is slower.
> >
> I was the one that said that.  On every system I have tried so far, apt is
> an order of magnitude faster than yum.  Worse yet, unless you explicitly
> tell it not to, yum tries to do certain things -every-single- time you run
> it.  (i.e. I really don't want to see "downloading headers" then I do "yum
> install gimp").  Then again, a lot of things I just haven't found an apt
> repo for, so...

you do realize why it prints 'downloading headers' right?

It gets a list of what is available on the repos and merges the lists to
determine what is most current, so it can provide you with an accurate
list of pkgs available. The downloading headers is actually checking the
headers to make sure they aren't corrupt, if they are corrupt then it
downloads them again to make sure it has a complete list of what might
be available.

-sv