From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1950 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 09:51:55 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 Sep 1999 09:51:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 15925 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 1999 09:51:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8107 Received: (qmail 15918 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 09:51:49 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: _rpm caches installed rpms In-Reply-To: <19990929195933.A15944@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> from Adam Spiers at "Sep 29, 1999 7:59:33 pm" To: adam@spiers.net Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:51:47 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram 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. The list can also be generated (with rpm -qa) quite quickly. In both of these aspects, rpm is unlike, for exxample, man, where caching is useful. -zefram