[pacman-dev] Hypotetic pacman's db structure (SQL)

[Aaron Griffin]

On Nov 9, 2007 1:39 PM, tardo <tardo at nagi-fanboi.net> wrote:
> Well you seem to be changing your mind quite often here. You first said
> you hated SQLite, then said it might be somewhat decent...

Citation? In all my history of knowing about sqlite, I have hated it,
for the sheer fact that they do not support standard SQL (a standard
from 1992 IIRC).

> Plus, anyone can access the sqlite db without
> needing to use pacman's API (should it be integrated).

Do we want this though? If we're going to go far enough to make a
binary DB like this, shouldn't we enforce some access standards? It
only seems right to me.

> On to the actual SQL part: I'm impressed. Many people talk about wanting
> to do it, yet few come up with a good DB. Here are my comments:

I'll bite here. First off, the reason I hate sqlite is because I
actually know this stuff, and know it well.

schema points:
1) splitting the description out isn't going to gain anything. I'd
recommend against it
2) optional deps are missing (new feature for 3.1)
3) this does not take the local db into account, so things like
installdate are missing (nullable)
4) a majority of the "description" table should be nullable. pacman
does not break if csize or isize are missing, for example