Am Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 09:09:26PM +0000, schrieb Ahmad Khalifa: > On 05/11/2025 15:00, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > But apt-ftparchive has the option to use BDB (= Berkeley DB) for caching > > and while I still believe it wouldn't be too hard to change to another > > DB (minus the probably hard part of vacillating a transition), I don't > > see it happen any time soon. At least I don't see why I should do it & > > so did nobody else in the last 12 years [0] (also: #1119193). > > There were 3 attempts to move away from BDB in the last 11 months, but all > failed unfortunately. None of those reached deity@.d.o or any other channel I would frequent, so it is hard to count attempts that might or might not have happened on a private hard drive and never saw the light of day. So, lets say nobody announced in the last 12 years to have worked on it, if that makes it more clear. > Sqlite is still my preferred option for an admin-managed database. That is nice to know, the database as used by apt-ftparchive is not admin-managed through. It is a binary blob as far as the admin of the repository is concerned, queried and managed only by apt-ftparchive, as its only caching information in a single filename to filesize & hashes mapping. As such, sqlite would be fine as would any (active) BDB fork (as noted back then, AGPL is not really a concern for apt-ftparchive) or any other form of key-value storage, really – all of which came into existence only after (or very close to) apt-ftparchive in 2001 it seems, which would have qualified as shiny new stuff that might have been avoided for more readily available and trusted technology like BDB… but I am not THAT old (in Debian) to know that first hand. ;) Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature