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