Pacman use SQL lite?

markw · 2005-03-18 03:07:24

Would it be feasible to program pacman to use sql lite? It might be faster.

btw, on a side note, maybe a future version could have proxy authentication?

i3839 · 2005-03-18 11:00:49

SQL lite is overkill, there are smaller dbs which are good enough for what Pacman needs.

If you want proxy authentication use wget or something with the XferCommand option in pacman.conf.

Eugenia · 2005-03-18 20:19:30

I disagree. SQLite is not overkill for what Pacman needs. MySQL, BDB4, Postgres are overkill though, and much bigger. There is also the MetaKit engine, which is probably simpler, but it is not nearly as powerful, for future endeveurs.

There is a bug report on this subject btw, most people agreed that a DB-based solution is a go.

phrakture · 2005-03-18 20:27:47

adding database support is against the philosophy... pacman is supposed to be simple...

cactus · 2005-03-18 20:35:03

Eugenia wrote:

There is a bug report on this subject btw, most people agreed that a DB-based solution is a go.

Really? I thought whenever the subject was brought up, that there was quite a mix of opinions on the subject. I never got the feeling that there was a leaning towards a DB-based solution.

I'm with phrakture on this one..

phrakture · 2005-03-18 20:42:15

cactus wrote:

I'm with phrakture on this one..

monkey-boy agrees

if you really want SQL support, the arch philosophy would probably be:
make a wrapper around it...look at pajman and pacmenu

create a DB format and then a small app to convert the pacman db into a SQL db...

# pacman -Sy && convert_pacdb

Dusty · 2005-03-18 20:48:47

I can't find the bug report... a link would help...

I've always found pacman to be lightning fast compared to apt, for example. Besides speed, I can't imagine another reason to change it?

oscar · 2005-03-19 01:49:02

markw wrote:

Would it be feasible to program pacman to use sql lite? It might be faster.
btw, on a side note, maybe a future version could have proxy authentication?

If you are intrested in a DB-backened packagemanager, use freaking portage! (you can make it use mysql, haven't tried it myself).

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-03-19 05:06:27

no need for that as far as I am concerned

Eugenia · 2005-03-19 05:11:26

some people really I don't know what they are smoking.

Using a DB does NOT mean that somehow everything gets complicated. Using SQLite still keeps the ease of use and even the programmer's ease of use pretty simple.

You have to understand, there are REAL, LEGITIMATE reasons why Pacman should mature and go with a DB. The biggest problem is that pacman is currently VERY slow and is thrashing the hdd really hard, making things really slow.

The two bug reports are here:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do= … a=comments
http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do= … a=comments

As it stand today (on a machine that has gnome/kde installed for example), Pacman is a SLOW solution because as Raven explains in the bug report it is pretty unoptimized. But even if you optimize the current design today, in 2-3 years you will STILL face the exact same wall of performance when the package db becomes bigger. And there is no reason to "wait" to make it even slower. Whoever maintains Pacman should start re-writing it and use some sort of simple and fast SQL (not overkill stuff like mysql) to do the job faster. Flat files is NOT the way to go.

cactus · 2005-03-19 05:28:52

I like how you threw in the word "mature" to imply that maturity == database. Great way to try to "lead" the discussion.

tell that to the subversion folks. fsfs kicks some serious butt over the old db implementation. Granted, it is "application specific" that it works out better for SCM..

anyway, I think there are more issues here than simple: db good, flat files bad. I would like to hear some more arguments for/against moving to a db only solution..

miqorz · 2005-03-19 05:39:42

phrakture hit the nail on the head.
Eugenia, please keep your OSNews bullshit complaining on your site where people might actually give a damn what you think.

Eugenia · 2005-03-19 05:39:46

Why not? I mean, using SQLite does not bring anything different in the way users will use Pacman. As a bonus, it will be fast. And might even be much easier for the developer as well, because only a subset of SQL would be used in a pretty well defined API. The way it is now, most things must be done "by hand", by Judd. SQLite can greatly help in some of these areas and actually simplify development!

miqorz · 2005-03-19 05:42:32

This is turning quite fun. It's kind of hard to see things for what they really are with those rose colored glasses you got there, eh?

Eugenia · 2005-03-19 05:43:47

miqorz, you are offensive, and without a ground here. You are in fact very offensive, WITHOUT a good reason: This is an open forum where Arch users can discuss things. And I am doing just that, because I AM using Arch Linux and I even PROMOTE Arch via OSNews on several occasions. I don't know why you have to attack me this way when I even have the proof you want about the current slowness of Pacman in these two bug reports. Both Judd and Jan ACKNOWLEDGE the problem and they are looking into a DB design to help out with performance. All I did was to bring this to your attention and advocate the solution, as I do find it a logical one.

Therefore, your attack was completely uncalled for and unfair.

miqorz · 2005-03-19 05:44:35

I'm terribly sorry. You're under the impression I give a damn.

Have an issue? Here's a tissue.

Go take it somewhere else.

iphitus · 2005-03-19 06:17:30

miqorz wrote:

I'm terribly sorry. You're under the impression I give a damn.
Have an issue? Here's a tissue.
Go take it somewhere else.

Go miqorz!

I might also add that pacman is faster than urpmi, faster than apt4rpm on mandrake.... and definitely faster than portage.

I dont see why it's o so suddenly immature because it uses its own database.

all the same, i wouldnt mind it using sqlite -- means i can use it in a program im writing without people bitching

Eugenia: some people here dont like you. mainly because of the terrible 'editorial's that are put on OSNews, many of which are often uninformed, poorly thought out or full of mistakes.

IceRAM · 2005-03-19 06:24:54

Out of curiosity, was the next thing stated around here?
flat files => access from any script, without extra code/libs
(this could be "fixed" by creating pacman-lib, but it would not help much scripting - yes, there are some libs for the scripting languages to facilitate access to some DB engines)

Anyhow, pacman IS good and I admit it can get better. Caching the DB or using more RAM might be a solution.

Eugenia · 2005-03-19 06:31:29

> some people here dont like you

This is NOT a reason to attack someone like this, especially when that someone tries to be helpful and offer information. You are free to have your likes and dislikes, but use them when appropriate. Make this discussion useful, not a flamebait because of your personal agenda.

miqorz · 2005-03-19 06:33:40

Eugenia wrote:

Make this discussion useful, not a flamebait because of your personal agenda.

Can't you just SMELL the irony?

Eugenia · 2005-03-19 06:34:13

No, can you smell your feet?

miqorz · 2005-03-19 06:35:59

Not over the horrid stench of your vagina. But thanks for asking.

stonecrest · 2005-03-19 06:50:09

iphitus wrote:

miqorz wrote:
I'm terribly sorry. You're under the impression I give a damn.
Have an issue? Here's a tissue.
Go take it somewhere else.
Go miqorz!

Yes, lets cheer on immaturity. Rah rah!

This thread is just sad. Frankly, miqorz should really be banned from here and the chat because he's the most immature and mean-spirited person around. God knows how many people he has already driven away from Arch, and how many more he will in the future. Talk about giving the Arch community a bad name.

miqorz · 2005-03-19 06:58:34

stonecrest, Thank you for the kind words.

I really appreciate the support.

cactus · 2005-03-19 07:11:56

It appears the discussion has descended into chaos. Maybe we can try it again in another topic. I really would like to hear peoples ideas about the pros/cons of pacman using a db.
*locking thread*

EDIT: Maybe try again here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?p=74869

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-18 03:07:24

Pacman use SQL lite?

#2 2005-03-18 11:00:49

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#3 2005-03-18 20:19:30

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#4 2005-03-18 20:27:47

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#5 2005-03-18 20:35:03

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#6 2005-03-18 20:42:15

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#7 2005-03-18 20:48:47

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#8 2005-03-19 01:49:02

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#9 2005-03-19 05:06:27

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#10 2005-03-19 05:11:26

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#11 2005-03-19 05:28:52

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#12 2005-03-19 05:39:42

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#13 2005-03-19 05:39:46

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#14 2005-03-19 05:42:32

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#15 2005-03-19 05:43:47

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#16 2005-03-19 05:44:35

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#17 2005-03-19 06:17:30

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#18 2005-03-19 06:24:54

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#19 2005-03-19 06:31:29

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#20 2005-03-19 06:33:40

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#21 2005-03-19 06:34:13

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#22 2005-03-19 06:35:59

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#23 2005-03-19 06:50:09

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#24 2005-03-19 06:58:34

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

#25 2005-03-19 07:11:56

Re: Pacman use SQL lite?

Board footer