Mike Noyes wrote:
I haven't looked at ipkg close enough to know for sure. I suppose my comment should be re-phrased...On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 10:54, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:To avoid re-inventing the wheel, I would suggest an RDB format database system, which is built out of plain ascii text files, and manipulated with small programs via shell scripts. Something like rdb (perl) or nosql (shell & awk):
ftp://ftp.rand.org/pub/RDB-hobbs/
http://www.linux.it/~carlos/nosql/
It has always been my intention to use something like this (ported to pure shell, or perhpas with a few complex modules written in c or forth) for the next generation packaging system, so using it for configuration too would be a good thing. :)
Charles, Did your evaluation of iPKG indicate it wasn't useful for this purpose?iPKG the Itsy Package Management System http://www.handhelds.org/z/wiki/iPKG
Pretty much any packaging system requires some form of database type features. Even the existing LRP packaging system creates a "database" of installed packages (although this is a simple text file with one package name per line).
I'm mainly suggesting that any updated packaging system and configuration system use the same database methods, and that the on-disk data representation should be a format easy to process with standard shell tools (ie plain text via something like rdb, rather than binary files via something like sleepycat/berkeley db). Ipkg probably already fits the plain-text description, since it started out as a shell-script, but I have not looked to see how "abstracted" their database interface is (to see how easy it would be to either replace it with something like rdb or to provide API hooks for use by the configuration system).
With modifications required to ipkg anyway (to enable the build/backup a configured system features required by LEAF), it shouldn't be too hard to add a front-end api to the existing ipkg database routines for use by the configuation system, or to convert ipkg to using something like rdb instead of whatever it's currently doing.
I just don't want to see two different methods for database type stuff...that's just a waste of space and requires additional code maintainence.
--
Charles Steinkuehler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
