Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database - Debian

This is a discussion on Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database - Debian ; On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:24 +0100 Roger Leigh wrote: > > No, that's why it is used in some embedded systems. Even so, it has > > no place in the rootfs for an embedded system, IMHO. I'd rather ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database

  1. Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database

    On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:24 +0100
    Roger Leigh wrote:

    > > No, that's why it is used in some embedded systems. Even so, it has
    > > no place in the rootfs for an embedded system, IMHO. I'd rather not
    > > have to repackage apt to remove this change.

    >
    > Why would it need to be on the root? Surely the binaries and data
    > would just go on /usr and /var as normal?


    ? A rootfs is the base filesystem created for the installer and for
    test environments like chroot. It is a normal filesystem with /usr/bin
    etc., it is just v.v.v.small and designed only to achieve the most
    minimal functionality before the rest of the system is installed.
    apt/dpkg/busybox have to be part of that rootfs for any flavour of
    Debian, as do their dependencies.

    > Perhaps just using sqlite as an (optional) cache for dpkg and/or apt
    > would bring sufficient improvements to systems which desire it


    That could actually be quite difficult - how would you migrate from one
    to the other? The installer will inevitably use the smallest possible
    combination of packages, the finished installation might need to use
    sqlite. Besides, you still have the same problems of trying to copy
    package sets and having to run sqlite before anything else can be done.

    Migrating from a busybox rootfs (without dpkg) would potentially cause
    more problems and making busybox depend on sqlite is plain crazy.

    --

    Neil Williams
    =============
    http://www.data-freedom.org/
    http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
    http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGY8Bsk7DVr6iX/QIRArY/AJ9gVRo8XYKJwkjFRCleJu1MJ2TUQwCghApA
    xxoI5oKwc08X3ynUa4t8NHY=
    =nIan
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database

    On Monday 04 June 2007 01:34:01 Neil Williams wrote:
    > That could actually be quite difficult - how would you migrate from one
    > to the other?


    Have the raw files and the sqlite cache on the mirrors. Give the local program
    the option to use either. Then you could use the raw files if the sqlite
    cache can't be used.

    > The installer will inevitably use the smallest possible
    > combination of packages, the finished installation might need to use
    > sqlite. Besides, you still have the same problems of trying to copy
    > package sets and having to run sqlite before anything else can be done.


    I don't understand why you'd have to run sqlite before anything else. It is a
    library, not an RDBMS like PostgreSQL.

    > Migrating from a busybox rootfs (without dpkg) would potentially cause
    > more problems and making busybox depend on sqlite is plain crazy.


    No need with the above approach, as the dpkg from busybox could still use the
    raw files.

    wt
    --
    Warren Turkal


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGZILuVcFcaSW/uEgRApzJAKCwyEePN4t+Pkchz8gz9oV/utDH5ACgys+W
    qN6u31S/KjkoeI2bCb6Q+2M=
    =sAdj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  4. Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database

    On Monday 04 June 2007 15:23:54 Roger Leigh wrote:
    > Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between busybox and sqlite.
    > If enabled, sqlite would be part of dpkg, probably either statically
    > linked or dynamically loaded. *I would think static, for safety.


    Doesn't Busybox include an implementation of dpkg?

    wt
    --
    Warren Turkal

+ Reply to Thread