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

Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database



On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:24 +0100
Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org> wrote:

> > No, that's why it is used in some embedded systems. Even so, it has
> > no place in the rootfs for an embedded system, IMHO. I'd rather not
> > have to repackage apt to remove this change.
> 
> Why would it need to be on the root?  Surely the binaries and data
> would just go on /usr and /var as normal?

? A rootfs is the base filesystem created for the installer and for
test environments like chroot. It is a normal filesystem with /usr/bin
etc., it is just v.v.v.small and designed only to achieve the most
minimal functionality before the rest of the system is installed.
apt/dpkg/busybox have to be part of that rootfs for any flavour of
Debian, as do their dependencies.

> Perhaps just using sqlite as an (optional) cache for dpkg and/or apt
> would bring sufficient improvements to systems which desire it

That could actually be quite difficult - how would you migrate from one
to the other? The installer will inevitably use the smallest possible
combination of packages, the finished installation might need to use
sqlite. Besides, you still have the same problems of trying to copy
package sets and having to run sqlite before anything else can be done.

Migrating from a busybox rootfs (without dpkg) would potentially cause
more problems and making busybox depend on sqlite is plain crazy.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgp4iMQmqWX4c.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: