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

Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.



On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:22:47AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 
> agreed, the plain text db is the right way to do it.
> 
> OTOH, it would be nice if dpkg did what apt does and uses a binary db
> "cache" to speed up operations...updating both binary and text versions
> as changes are made.
> 
> the text version would be considered authoritative (or "source code")
> and the binary db would be the faster, "compiled" version. if the binary
> version ever got corrupted for any reason, it could be regenerated
> quickly from the text version.
> 
> dpkg would also need to detect whether the text version was newer than
> the binary version and, if so, automatically rebuild the binary.
> 
> nice idea, perhaps...but i don't know how practical it is or whether the
> time needed to maintain the binary db would more than offset the time
> saved.

i think dlocate really takes care of the problem nicely, for things
like status and file lists dlocate is quite fast.  its unfortunate
that it was removed from potato for a *ONE LINE BUG* with a fix in the
bts... why oh why could there not have been an NMU?? 

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgpOnSlhVX1uN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: