On 8 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Bruce" == Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bruce> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, David Wright wrote: > >> Quoting Bruce Sass ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > ...> > >> > The result is still human readable and editable with any text editor, > >> > if you know the codes. The "special dpkg editor" would just make life > >> > easier for those not wanting to look up or learn any codes. > > And now the question is how much of an advantage this would > offer, considering that one has now got to ensure that both the > databases never get out of sync.
I was not considering it as a second database, or that two would be required (after all, it is still human-readable and printable). A scheme involving two DBs _will_ get out of sync at some point.... How much the code overhead needed to minimize the possibility, and recover when it happens, eats into the savings gained from using a binary DB is yet to be addressed. > I suspect that the minor advantages in speed and memory usage > may ot be worth the effort. Well, considering that it is a single DB scheme that merely changes the common strings into numbers, I don't think the effort would be very big. later, Bruce