Am 2004-08-27 02:54:37, schrieb Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw):
> We could keep the Packages file for backward
> compatibility. Perhaps we can compress it? Or create
> a compressed version?
It IS already compressed...
In the Mirror (today, main) there are:
WOODY: Packages 6.531.974 Bytes
WOODY: Packages.gz 1.774.018 Bytes
SARGE: Packages 11.879.329 Bytes
SARGE: Packages.gz 3.057.427 Bytes
I think, this is quiet aceptable
SID: Packages 12.614.196 Bytes
SID: Packages.bz2 2.465.740 Bytes
SID: Packages.gz 3.219.380 Bytes
Here we can make based Weekly or TWO-Weekly full Packages and
then a daily diff wit the updates Packages.
> And what about to use alternative "storage"
> like DBs and XML? We have SQLite that could be useful.
Too blown...
> Anyway, probably would be better if we provide some
> alternative to Sarge and try to find a better solution
> to stable-after-sarge.
Maybe...
> I also think in split Packages file fields
> and create an index between then, build a Depends file
> that should be used to keep the consistency.
Or a Packages file with the normal Headers and one
for the Desription...
> Well, just a few ideas in the brainstorm.
>
> Best regards,
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment:
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature