Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

[Bruce Sass <bsass@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
<...>
> text database is the ONLY way to go, if it were not for that i would
> have been totally fscked when my /var got hosed and my backup was
> inconsistent with my current package installation which confused
> dpkg.  (answer: emacs /var/lib/dpkg/status took a little time to work
> out, but MUCH LESS then it would have taken to blow away my install
> and start over from scratch) 

Well, it is one way to go.  :)


Ethan, what is the difference between:
    emacs /var/lib/dpkg/status
and
    dpkg-bin-db-editor /var/lib/dpkg/status.bin
or even
    other-os-version-of-dpkg-bin-db-editor c:\path\to\copy\of\status
for those really odd cases where you need to use a different OS to fix
your Debian box?


I prefer the text way, but have not heard anything that makes me believe
the bin way is fundamentally wrong.  What is needed is a list of failure
modes and the remedies using both text and bin based systems.  If it
turns out that one must reinstall in more often to fix a problem in the
bin case than in the text case then scrap the idea of a bin DB for dpkg.
However, if it turns out that either system is workable then take steps
to ensure that dpkg-bin-db-editor has all the features you need...

I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e.,
given the freedom to royally screw things up if I feel so inclined), and
it doesn't matter if it is via a text editor or a special bin editor. 


later,

	Bruce