1 |
On Friday, April 03, 2015 8:52:18 AM Stroller wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Thu, 2 April 2015, at 4:37 pm, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> |
4 |
wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > I prefer it this way. I do not want all the nice easy-to read/edit |
7 |
> > configuration stuff in /etc/portage encrypted some Windows Registry |
8 |
> > break-alike. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> What's bad about the Windows registry is that its proprietary file format is |
11 |
both poorly constructed (or, rather "lacking design") and obscure, and its |
12 |
reputation was for brittleness was built when it was stored on FAT file systems |
13 |
and corrupted when Windows crashed and had to be hard rebooted. |
14 |
|
15 |
And that it became a central repository for *everything*, it wasn't too bad as |
16 |
just a COM registry on Windows 3.11. Microsoft's been pushing developers to |
17 |
use config files for years but they themselves keep using the registry poorly. |
18 |
Install the latest visual studio, then uninstall it and search your registry. |
19 |
You will find over 20,000 registry entries left behind. |
20 |
|
21 |
> If you want to store a lot of stuff, then databases are a valid solution. If |
22 |
there's something wrong with sqlite or BerkeleyDB then argue against them, but |
23 |
don't base your objections on a strawman. |
24 |
|
25 |
I agree that a binary db for portage is a good idea, only because it's |
26 |
ridiculous how long it takes portage to resolve dependencies. It could be just |
27 |
a cache that gets rebuilt after syncing or updating config files. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Fernando Rodriguez |