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

Re: Binary pkg cache (WAS: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)

On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 10:57:44PM +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> >>>>> "Craig" == Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> 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...

Just for the record, I am one such.

The key requirement is that the content of the DB be easily accessible
to any user of the system, in any form.  Text is just one simply way
to acheive this.  Another requirement is robustness against
corruption; again, text is one way to acheive *that*.

I can see tremendous advantages to registry-type systems *if*
implemented carefully, and also to RDBMS based systems...

That all being said, text based files with a binary cache for fast
access is certainly a good solution.


Jules Bean                          |        Any sufficiently advanced 
jules@{debian.org,jellybean.co.uk}  |  technology is indistinguishable
jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk              |               from a perl script

Reply to: