On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:41:04 +0100 Nagy Gabor <[email protected]> wrote:
> First of all, many thanks for your huge work. I will support your > attempt on reworking our db backend stuff. I haven't completely reviewed > your patch yet (it is quite advanced, I guess I will learn a lot from > here), but I have some "pre-reading" comments. (Keep in my mind: I am > just a pacman contributor here.) > Thanks a lot for taking the time to look at the patch, it's much appreciated! > > - be_files.c \ > > + b...@[email protected] \ > 2. I think we need a more sophisticated approach here. I would be happy, > if we had database backend plugins (be_files.so, be_packed.so, > be_sqlite.so, ...) for dlopen(), and some way to inform pacman about the > database handler (for example: /var/lib/pacman/local/.backend, which has > one line: packed). I think this is quite straightforward (but needed) to > implement. I agree with that. The @BACKEND@ was just a quick hack to prevent things from breaking. > 3.* Our whole db back-end system needs some redesign (independent from > your work): If we have fast database back-end, I am not sure we need > this ugly pkgcache stuff. Probably pkgcache should be moved to back-end > level (if needed). Yes, if you look at the packed backend the pkgcache basicly duplicates the data that's already mmaped, kind of a waste of memory. > 4.* When we rework pmpkg_t, we must keep in mind, that at this moment it > is the structure of database entry *and* package file. When we > restructure things, we must find a good place for ".tar.gz". Maybe we should start a thread where we could just throw around some ideas on possible ways to rework the current package handling in a sane way. Cheers -- Sivert Berg <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
