Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:59:51 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports system woes Message-ID: <9509942A-ADFC-4435-93BF-4D8E97378271@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <fsdnef$j3j$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20080326131800.GA75243@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20080326135806.M17639@FreeBSD.org> <fsdnef$j3j$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 26, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >> Solution is to use tools that are available in our base system. >> SQLite is not. > > Yet :) > Compared to some of the (huge) things that are maintained in the base, > maintaining sqlite would be trivial :) > > But it's not as if the question is "sqlite or bust" - as OP noted, > restructuring the system a bit and using better algorithms could fix > many problems. The thing is - using something like sqlite is (at least > for people used to SQL) much easier than rolling your own file system > database (including locking and atomic ops). > We're rehashing the discussion made last year around June - July. We came to the conclusion that BDB should be used, as no other DB backend / API exists in the base system (currently), and porting SQLLite (while nice) appeared to be non-trivial to port and got a lot of unhappy responses from folks. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9509942A-ADFC-4435-93BF-4D8E97378271>