On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> I should point out that there are far bigger issues than the separator if
> DistTag is incorporated as a package identifier:
>
> 1) precedence of comparison: is it EVRD (as is common with %{?dist} usage) or
> is it DEVR (as some might wish)
To satisfy everyone, two variants can be introduced: an epoch-like disttag
and a release-like disttag. Wouldn't it be quite fun? (Then, of course,
I'd put the epoch-like disttag between the name and the epoch in the
format.)
> 2) interoperability when mixtures of packages are installed with/without
> DistTag.
>
> 3) the dbiFindByLabelFoo() reads every package header in Packages (~100Mb),
> possibly multiple times, trying various matches. The proper way to perform a
> query like this is to create indices for each field and do a join to minimize
> the amount of data that must be read. A change to an rpmdb of that magnitude
> is highly unlikely.
>
> (aside)
> There is also the issues of patterns in queries: a join will not solve that
> problem. RPM5 uses a btree with a prefix key to find candidates to retrieve
> rather than retrieving every header. But I digress ...
>
> Warning:
> My comments here will be deleted within a week: I have negative interest in
> participating in a DistTag discussion that I have already had, and already
> implemented. Have fun!
--
Best regards,
Ivan
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/589#issuecomment-437645122
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
