Re: dpkg and sqlite... ...?
- To: sean finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: dpkg and sqlite... ...?
- From: joe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:38:07 -0400
- Message-id: <bf4d3b0629e8141d25b7e74c0053c425@localhost>
- In-reply-to: <1175291771.5284.12.camel@localhost>
- References: <1175291771.5284.12.camel@localhost>
> hey folks,
> (please cc me on responses, i'm not subscribed)
> people have brought this up a few times but i haven't seen an answer
> whether or not this is something you'd be interested in having. usually
> the discussion seems to veer off to "you should set foo on your
> filesystem" etc.
> as others have mentioned, sqlite3 seems to show a bit of promise to
> speed up many of the operations dpkg performs. namely, files,
> diversions, md5sums, and package statuses could all be stored in a
> relatively simple schema in a single file. it advertises acid
> operations as well (though i don't have enough practical experience to
> know if that's completely true).
> as a plus, it would drastically reduce the amount of code in dpkg. the
> hundreds of lines of code dedicated toe
> scanning/reading/writing/parsing/representing the various *.list
> *.md5sums etc could be reduced to a small number of sql queries.
> i spent a little time dicking around earlier today just to see how
> feasible it would be, and hacked out a sample schema which could be used
> for representing the above data, and a sample "list installed
> files" (including diversions) function.
> so, what's the general consensus on this? yea or nay?
I say you/we should at least try it out.