On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Rick Mann <rm...@latencyzero.com> wrote: > My problem is that I don't understand how putting the apt cache in RAM is > beneficial if what you're trying to do is avoid flash writes. If you're > updating the cache, then you're also intending to install or upgrade > software, which will write to flash. If it's in RAM and not persisted, > forcing you to do an update each time you do an install or upgrade, how does > this prevent writing to flash?
It's not in local ram, it's on disk... When you run "apt-get update" a local cache database is created, this database can become out of date.. Especially if your running testing/unstable. For stable (wheezy) it's not really an issue, unless you have someone like me pushing kernel and bb.org package updates to the repo. For official images, i "clear" out this local apt cache, to 1: save space, 2: it can be months out of date.. ;) Regards, -- Robert Nelson https://rcn-ee.com/ -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
