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 |