I suppose you could also integrate things like `groups` and `classes` so you 
could have standard packages for all your installed systems if they are in 
those groups. Something a bit like zero-conf from apple ?

That i suppose you could do without actually having a database layer 
although a database layer with some nice administration tools would sure 
make it easier.

P
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eldad Zack" <eldad@...>
To: <gentoo-performance@g.o>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:32 PM
Subject: [gentoo-performance] portage database layer [Was: Testing, 
testing...]


| On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 14:13, Chris Smith wrote:
| > On Tuesday 06 April 2004 11:57, Jerry McBride wrote:
| > > Nicholas wrote:
| > > > Ok, This week's project is to test Gentoo's performance...
| > >
| > > How about a "performance wish list" ?
| > >
| > > 1 - Migrate emerge from python to C.
| > > 2 -  Use a real database for portage instead of a filesystem
| > > 3 - ....
| > But seriously, folks. Number 2 I can see having good points 
feature-wise, but
| > not performance. Same with number 1.
|
| Well, it did occur to me, that it would be very useful virtualizing the
| database layer, so that we can use whatever database we want to choose.
| If that's a filesystem based, or a real database, or a REMOTE database.
|
| A remote database would allow managing a horde of gentoo installations
| much easier. It would open up a possiblity of writing a tracker to
| handle security updates, and packages checking on a
| least-change-welcomed corp enviornments.
| This tracker will have to check only one database.
|
| Of course, you can do it right now, only you will have to sync the
| database after every change, or have the tracker poll every host (which
| is abit of the sub-optimal side).
|
| This isn't really "performance", though.
|
|
|
|
| --
| gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list
| 


--
gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list