Binary pkg cache (WAS: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Sanders <email@example.com> writes:
Craig> On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:37:39PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>> this is a tremendous advantage of dpkg, it should never be
>> changed to use a binary database.
Craig> agreed, the plain text db is the right way to do it.
I don't thing there are a lot of dissenters on this one...
[Craig does an outline how this binary cache would work...]
Craig> nice idea, perhaps...but i don't know how practical it is
Craig> or whether the time needed to maintain the binary db would
Craig> more than offset the time saved.
For one thing, it would probably (very probably) make dpkg consume a
lot less memory. AFAICT, apt needs to read just as much package info
as dpkg to do its ordering thing... but we all know that it consumes a
lot less memory than dpkg.
Which considering the site of Debian is something that definitely has
to be fixed (I mean the mem consumption of dpkg).
Or we have to give up on smaller machines soon...
PS: No, I'm not volunteering... and neither do I want to pressure
Wichert (or any other dpkg-developers). I just wanted to give a
little hint... ;-)
Jürgen A. Erhard eMail: firstname.lastname@example.org phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
GNUstep - Free OPENSTEP (http://www.gnustep.org)
pros do it for money -- amateurs out of love.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use Mailcrypt and GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----