On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 07:42:40PM +0300, Alexey Tourbin wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 07:29:11PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 06:06:18PM +0300, Alexey Tourbin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:35:42AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:35:37AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > apt-shell < /dev/null
> > > 
> > > > Not so amazing as on your test platform, but awesome anyway.
> > > > I'm going to apply these patches.
> > > > If anybody has objections, please speak up now.
> > > 
> > > The objection is, why do you think the problem is with here, not with apt?
> > > Go yonder and optimize apt!
> > 
> > It was rpm that was changed to work 10x times slower, not apt.
> > But apt certainly could be made better, so feel free to optimize it.
> 
> RPM goes reasonably fast, and it's not exactly "slower".
> Something that might be called unreasonable is behind the RPM. 
> 
> I can't see why rpm is now 10x times slower.
> Slower compared to... what?

You cannot dismiss arguments so freely.  The abovementioned command
"apt-shell < /dev/null" from apt-0.5.15lorg2-alt33 works 10x times slower
after update from librpm-4.0.4-alt98.45 to librpm-4.0.4-alt98.49.
No matter how unreasonable apt is, it was rpm update that slowed it down.


-- 
ldv