Re: DPKG

[Christian Lavoie <clavoie@enter-net.com>]

> >   >I was wondering... (And this probably already has been mentioned 
but
> >   >anyway), why wouldn't DPKG/APT/DSELECT use a real database server 
like
> >   >mySQL/mSQL/PostgreSQL/... to keep it's own database?
> >
> > Because a database has to be set up, as well as taking a significant
> > amount of space that simply isn't available on the installation 
floppies.
> >
> > dselect/apt has to work as soon as the base system is installed.  If 
you
> > introduce a complex product like a RDBMS, there's just too much extra
> > that can go wrong.

> Good point. Another one is that many low-end machines don't have 
> the horsepower or disk space to run dpkg/apt with an 
> sql server. We need to keep Debian as lean & mean as possible.

Actually, not all of dselect's methods work right out of the floppies. 
Neither does most of Debian's 1500 packages. But I think that to 
ALLOW, and not FORCE, dpkg to access a database server could be of 
use. Think of it on large networks where the admin must sync a few key 
packages, or in places where identical machines are a necessary, or 
highly appreciated thing.

My point is that it actually can be quite useful to do, yours is that 
it's quite stupid to FORCE things that way. The hell with it, I'm 
fully agreeing with ya. ;) Does anyone really uses weekly all of 
dselect's methods? Why then would one use maultiple packages 
databases? I think were arguing on a 'one fits all' vs a specialized 
solution.

Anyway, once you've got a database server installed, I think it should 
be a great thing to use, since anyway, next re-install is in a few 
decades. ;P

Christian Lavoie