debimg core example

The following example demonstrates the features of debimg core, and how it can be used to fetch a some packages. As you will see when you run this example, debimg uses SHA1 filenames for the downloaded files. This may be changed in a future version.

There is also an improved version of this example, which creates a repository, but the needed module (debimg.core.repository) is not public yet, because its far from being finished. I expect to complete repository code on Wednesday.

# Copyright (C) 2009 Julian Andres Klode.
# Released under the terms of the GNU General Publice License, version 3
# or (at your option) any later version.
"""Example to demonstrate the power of debimg's pool

This example creates a directory example.debimg, with two subdirectories:
- pool: This holds debimg's file pool (see debimg.core.files.Pool)
from debimg.core.resolver import Resolver
from debimg.core.files import Pool

def main():
    """Called when the script is executed."""

    # Create a pool, which manages the access to the files.
    pool = Pool('example.debimg/pool')

    # Create a resolver using your local apt configuration.
    pkgs = Resolver()

    # Add all packages with priority required to the resolver

    # Add the packages from the resolver to the pool
    for group in pkgs.groups():
        for package in group:

    pool.fetch() # Fetch all the packages from the mirror

    for file in sorted(pool._files, key=lambda k: k.uri):
        print file # Print information about every file, sorted by URI.

if __name__ == '__main__':

2 thoughts on “debimg core example

  1. Nice. As a performance tip (at least under CPython), try using operator.attrgetter(‘uri’) instead of `lambda k: k.uri`.

    1. Thanks, I know. According to my tests operator.attrgetter is 1.5 times faster than a lambda function. (272ns vs 363ns). I simply forget it most of the time when writing code.

      I found such a case in the resolver, fixing it would shorten the resolver speed by approx. 2ms for 20,000 packages (which is 1/10,000 of the time needed for resolving the dependencies).

      As you can see, there is no big difference. But it’s still true, that operator.attrgetter() is faster.

Comments are closed.