|Summary:||yum update sorts files by size for downloading|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Don Russell <fedora>|
|Component:||yum||Assignee:||Seth Vidal <skvidal>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||9||CC:||ffesti, james.antill, katzj, pmatilai, robatino, tla|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-06-12 15:44:50 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Don Russell 2008-06-12 15:30:26 UTC
Description of problem: More of an "enhancement"... "yum update" appears to sort files for download by size, smallest first. Not sure if this is a deliberate sort, or just coinicdence. But sorting so the largest is download first conveys more user information and improves *perceived progress*. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): yum-3.2.16-2.fc9.noarch How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. yum update 2. reply y to prompt asking if it's OK to download xxx MB 3. Actual results: files are downloaded, smallest first Expected results: Actually I *expected* no particular order. But, since the order appears to be deliberately smallest first, I'd like to suggest it be largest first: - While waiting/watching a user would always know the next file is the same size or SMALLER than the one just downloaded - The *Perception* would be that the process is speeding up instead of slowing down :-) Additional info: See initial thread on fedora forum: https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#label/Fedora%2FGeneral/11a797f660cba3a0
Comment 1 James Antill 2008-06-12 15:44:50 UTC
My understanding from people who have taken psychology is that people split into "first impression lasts" and "later impression eventually wins" ... and that the former is _much_ more common. So it's much more likely that the perception of largest first would be that it's slower. Also the point of downloading smallest first, from a purely technical point of view, is that at any time you can break out of the download and you'll have the largest set of _complete_ packages that you can install.
Comment 2 Don Russell 2008-06-13 03:37:19 UTC
Point 1: So provide an option to control the sort option, default to "most people". Point 2: Not much of an argument. If a package has dependencies, what's in place to make sure the dependency is downloaded before beginning the next package? Also, since downloading/installing a whole set of updates was checked for dependency issues, you can't reliably just "break out" any time and install what you have. Sorting files by size does not guarantee that any package is complete. What if a common dependency IS the largest file? Worst case: The smallest file has a dependency on the largest file. So you can't install that package until the last file is obtained. So much for "break out any time". Actually, the idea of simply sorting by size is a waste of resources... it really doesn't provide any useful benefit. It looks neat and tidy, but other than that... If you really want to support a "break out any time" theory better, take dependencies into account so files and their dependencies are downloaded together, then the next set, and so on.