On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:46:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > >> The current dpkg database counts for less than 0.1% of the entire used > >> disk space of a typical Debian system. Even with the new meta-data, I > > > > I think it makes more sense to measure database size as compared to > > the size of managed files. Conary manages 4.62 GiB on my system. We > > use a sqlite database that's 126 MiB. I have a 60 GB hard drive on my > > system, so that's roughly 0.2%. > > It makes no sense to compare the database size to a typical > system. Typical systems have so much diskspace that they just don't > care anyway.
That's what I was attempting to say. Almost all of the 60 GB on my disc are "used." The metric should be database size given the data under package management. > The problem is with small systems. Your mips router, your arm pda and > so on. With a 256-512MB disk an 126MB databse is quite unacceptable. > Even now dpkg + apt meta data can make up half of the systems > diskspace. No doubt a 126 MiB database is too big for a PDA - but it will have far, far less data under package management. I don't know how small a Conary database would be in this case, but it certainly won't be 126 MiB. I'm not sure how feasible it will be to have a good database that meets the needs for both big systems and embedded systems. ipkg seems to be a sufficient package management solution for the extremely small systems... Cheers, Matt -- Matt Wilson Founding Engineer rPath, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
