On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > > > But that doesn't speed up dpkg's -s, -l, -S and -L options (and all the > > others that need to read the packages database, of course). That is what > > this proposal is about, speeding up dpkg calls. I haven't tried apt yet, > > since dselect (with the "mountable" method) still does the job for me. I > > wouldn't like to see dselect discontinued. > > Hm, these days APT is a replacement for the mountable, ftp and http > methods in dselect, it does many more things than any one of the methods > alone.
Ok, but then dpkg still isn't sped up. The idea was, that a cache database for dpkg's data files (available, status, *.info, etc.) would speed up every call to dpkg during installation, configuration and removal of packages. Every installation method, including apt, would gain speed from that. I haven't heard any arguments against it, except some like "apt already does some caching". But that's not what the proposal was about. Let apt do all the caching it wants to do. It's when you come to install packages that you notice how slow dpkg starts up, no matter what method you use. It is this slowness that I'd like to see fixed, _especially_ when (if??) apt (or some other program like autoup.sh) calls dpkg multiple times to install packages in the right order. Remco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
