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

Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database

Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> writes:

> 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.


>> 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?

If the database is "just a cache", then it should get transparently
rebuilt as soon as you change it.

> 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.

If it's an optional cache, then there's no need to actually build the
cache if it's not possible; you can just fall back to the real data.

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

Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between busybox and sqlite.
If enabled, sqlite would be part of dpkg, probably either statically
linked or dynamically loaded.  I would think static, for safety.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: pgpzYuC3U_OvW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: