Re: dpkg speed (was: Re: PROPOSAL: Extrafiles)
Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> That's why I and several other people have proposed a cache database. The
> text files will still be the authoritative source of information for dpkg.
> But after dpkg has read them and built its database in memory (as it does
> now), it can save this database to disk. The next time dpkg runs, it can
> simply stat the text files and the database and then use either the text
> files or the cache database, depending on which has been modified more
> recently. And every time dpkg updates the database from a Packages
> file, it will write not only the updated database but also the updated
> text files to disk.
> If I am correct, this means that dpkg only needs to rebuild the database
> from scratch if the sysadmin has edited one or more of the text files.
> This could mean a much shorter startup time for dpkg.
Doesn't apt already use a cache database? Seems the code is alreaqdy
see shy jo
I'm on a long trip, pardon any delays in my reply.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org