On Fri, 11 May 2007 02:10:05 +0200 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mentioned:
> - I think it's time to give up on using BDB+directory tree full of text > files for storing the installed packages database, and I propose all of > this be replaced by a single SQLite database. SQLite is public domain > (can be slurped into base system), embeddable, stores all data in a > single file, lightweight, fast, and can be used to do fancy things such > as reporting. What is the reason to use SQL-based database? You'll perform direct queries to database? The packaging system is for ordinal users, not sql geeks, so they should not have to use sql for managing packages. So a simple set of hashes will suffer or needs. I agree with Julian that we should have a backup of packaging database in plain text format, and utility to rebuild it. This way we can always restore the database if something goes wrong. Furhtermore, that should not make a great impact on performance, since we don't have to rebuild it every day. > > - A quick test confirms that the current bsdtar will happily ignore any > extra data at the end of a tgz/tbz archive, so package metadata can be > embedded there, thus conserving existing infrastructure and being fast > to parse. I suggest encoding this metadata in a sane and easy to parse > XML structure. > > I cannot currently actively participate in implementing proposed things, > but I can give advice on sqlite, database and xml schemas if anyone > wants to... > Why use XML for that? It's hard to parse and hard to read format, and I personally see no benefits of using it. If you're suggesting XML a simple bracket-structure format (like bind's config) will fit our needs much better (easier to parse and read and same benefits as XML). Also we might consider YAML, thought I like this idea much fewer. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE
pgpZu3qUtFFBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
