From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7831 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 18:34:12 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 Sep 1999 18:34:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 23005 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 1999 18:34:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8117 Received: (qmail 22997 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 18:34:03 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:32:37 +0100 From: Adam Spiers To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: _rpm caches installed rpms Message-ID: <19990930193237.A2054@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> Reply-To: Adam Spiers Mail-Followup-To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk References: <19990929195933.A15944@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: X-URL: http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/~adam/ X-OS: Linux 2.2.9 i686 Zefram (zefram@fysh.org) wrote: > Adam Spiers wrote: > >I'm personally a fan of caching (sp?). Others may not be; should it > >be configurable? In any case, the cache can easily be force-rebuilt. > > I think caching is dangerous in this case. If the rpm command is being > used, then the data you are caching -- the list of installed packages > -- is almost certainly changing. Oops, good point. Peter, probably best to leave that patch out. > The list can also be generated (with > rpm -qa) quite quickly. Not on my machine :-( 664 installed rpms ... > In both of these aspects, rpm is unlike, for > exxample, man, where caching is useful. True.