| 1 |
Ingo Krabbe wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi all, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I'm currently working on a Berkeley DB project for my customer. While |
| 6 |
> doing this I'm asking if the package management of portage shouldn't go |
| 7 |
> to database one day ? I mean it is getting slow ... it could be much |
| 8 |
> faster though. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Has anybody thought about this topic ? Are there current developments |
| 11 |
> on this topic ? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
To your first argument I agree, portage is not very fast when searching for |
| 14 |
packages etc. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But, I would vote strongly againgst moving it to a database approach. Having |
| 17 |
all portage information in plain textfiles because: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* This enables easy creation of tools, that display/manage portage |
| 20 |
information in various ways because text files can be processed with any |
| 21 |
programming language |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
* If something goes wrong there is a chance to correct this if textfiles are |
| 24 |
used. Putting all into a database which stores everything in binary format |
| 25 |
only seems rather scary to me. Although the potential speedup sounds |
| 26 |
interessting this idea reminds me of the Windows registry, which was a nice |
| 27 |
idea in the beginning, but turned out to be a nightmare. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If performance of portage is a problem for you, I would suggest using the |
| 30 |
current portage information to build a fast searchable index for the |
| 31 |
portage information. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Christian |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Christian Plessl <plessl@×××××××××××.ch> |
| 38 |
Computer Engineering and Networks Lab, ETH Zurich, Switzerland |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives