Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-08 Thread s. keeling
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 01:26:16PM +0200, Juli-Manel Merino Vidal wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:37:03PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > > > Bruce Sass writes: > > > I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given > > > > I'm not convinced that you can write a special b

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-08 Thread Juli-Manel Merino Vidal
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:37:03PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Bruce Sass writes: > > I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given > > the freedom to royally screw things up if I feel so inclined), and it > > doesn't matter if it is via a text editor or a special bin e

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-08 Thread Bruce Sass
On 7 Sep 2000, John Hasler wrote: > Bruce Sass writes: > > 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. > > Ok, but I'm not sure that

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-07 Thread John Hasler
Bruce Sass writes: > 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. Ok, but I'm not sure that it would be significantly faster then a well-d

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-07 Thread Bruce Sass
On 7 Sep 2000, John Hasler wrote: > Bruce Sass writes: > > I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given > > the freedom to royally screw things up if I feel so inclined), and it > > doesn't matter if it is via a text editor or a special bin editor. > > I'm not convince

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-07 Thread John Hasler
Bruce Sass writes: > I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given > the freedom to royally screw things up if I feel so inclined), and it > doesn't matter if it is via a text editor or a special bin editor. I'm not convinced that you can write a special bin editor that

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-07 Thread Bruce Sass
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote: <...> > text database is the ONLY way to go, if it were not for that i would > have been totally fscked when my /var got hosed and my backup was > inconsistent with my current package installation which confused > dpkg. (answer: emacs /var/lib/dpkg/status to

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-07 Thread Ethan Benson
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:28:15PM +1100, loki wrote: > I thought Solaris used binary databases for speed, with a text one > as backup and for readability. What if we had both a text and > binary database, and added the following options to dpkg: [snip] no need install dlocate: $ time dlocate

Re: dpkg binary dbase (was Re: Debian vs. Red Hat)

2000-09-06 Thread loki
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 07:02:21PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Chris Gray writes: >> I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also a >> lot slower. It would be nice to write it with a binary database. > > _N_ > Ahhm. > Do you want to try to edi