[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "dselect" replacement team

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Tom Lees wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Sorry, I wasn't clear, there are two sets of the key/data pairs, one on a
> > global level, the key is the package name the data is some kind of package
> > data.
> > 
> > Inside the data element there is a second database of key/string pairs
> > which is the 'second tier' I was meaning.
> > 
> > So  you have Package\Tag=Value
> One of the major advantages of libdb is that you are not limited to only
> strings in your database. All it gives you is a pointer to a bit of
> memory, and the size of that - what you put in that can be whatever you
> like, e.g. a struct. But you have to remember to set the size right, so
> that the whole thing gets written out.

Yeah, gnu's gdb also did this, It would be nice to have a full database
that supported the 2 levels, but gdb/db will work in a pinch.

This of course poses the question, how can we easially make the base
library support cases were the entire list is in memory and were only the
items that are required are loaded..

If we simply load the database in full each time we fire up then it won't
help anything at all.. Ideally progams like dpkg will only read the
package descriptions that they absolutely require..

Hm, I have some ideas on how to do that elagantly, I will have to ponder
them somemore before they are presentable.


Reply to: