On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:22:47AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > agreed, the plain text db is the right way to do it. > > OTOH, it would be nice if dpkg did what apt does and uses a binary db > "cache" to speed up operations...updating both binary and text versions > as changes are made. > > the text version would be considered authoritative (or "source code") > and the binary db would be the faster, "compiled" version. if the binary > version ever got corrupted for any reason, it could be regenerated > quickly from the text version. > > dpkg would also need to detect whether the text version was newer than > the binary version and, if so, automatically rebuild the binary. > > nice idea, perhaps...but i don't know how practical it is or whether the > time needed to maintain the binary db would more than offset the time > saved.
i think dlocate really takes care of the problem nicely, for things like status and file lists dlocate is quite fast. its unfortunate that it was removed from potato for a *ONE LINE BUG* with a fix in the bts... why oh why could there not have been an NMU?? -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgpfJVOaXnxFc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
