| 1 |
> Andy Dustman wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> Jerry McBride wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> Portage SHOULD have a database backend. MySql would be perfect. In the |
| 6 |
>>> name of performance, at least have a second look at this. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I don't think mandating any relational database as a pre-requisite to |
| 9 |
>> Portage is a good idea, unless you implement it in such a way that you |
| 10 |
>> have it as a pluggable backend, i.e. you can stick with the current |
| 11 |
>> filesystem method, or bdb, or MySQL, or PostgreSQL, or whatever. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In retrospect you need not mandate a particular database, but having the |
| 15 |
> ability to plug portage into an sql compatible database engine would be a |
| 16 |
> dream. On the other, for the sake of simplicty, using something the likes |
| 17 |
> of bdb would be just as useful. Whatever you decide on using, it would |
| 18 |
> HAVE |
| 19 |
> to be better than the current file system based method. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What about some non-daemoned SQL db, such as SQLite? Surely not near as |
| 23 |
fast as MySQL or PostgreSQL, but more reasonable. A lot of users are not |
| 24 |
going to want to run a SQL server all the time on every box. |
Archives