Re: dpkg binary dbase
Quoting Bruce Sass (bsass@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca):
>
> What is the effective difference between telling someone to make sure
> the Status field reads, "install ok installed", and telling them to make
> sure the second field after the package name reads, "111". Sure, it is
> less transparent, but the end result is the same and it can be placed in
> a message for cut'n'pasting. I don't think a "code book" would be
> necessary, a quick reference page perhaps, but not a book.
Quick reply - it's nerdish.
More considered: It increases the irrelevant knowledge that has to be
carried in order to fix things quickly and efficiently. A problem may
no longer be spotted at a glance, except by people who immerse
themselves in that sort of thing. A new layer of priesthood is added.
> > I can also browse and search any disparate set of configuration files
> > with standard tools like less and grep.
>
> Actually, grepping would be more productive because it would return more
> information per line. e.g., (using a hypothetical encoded text DB)
> $ grep pppconfig /var/lib/dpkg/status
> $ pppconfig:2.0.5:111:90:999:2:5
> The trailing "2" and "5" represent "base" and "optional", the rest
> should be decipherable from reading this message and doing
> "dpkg -s pppconfig".
That's the sort of response I might expect from someone not familiar
with the A/B/C switches in grep. An alternative way of scanning would
also be less with the -j command.
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Reply to: