Re: policy suggestion (seeking discussion)
rdm@test.legislate.com (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[🔎] 19980426163435.06670@hazel>:
> Enrique Zanardi <ezanardi@ull.es> wrote:
> > I'm not a dpkg expert, but AFAIK modifying directly the dpkg databases
> > (yes, almost everything under var/lib/dpkg are dpkg databases) is a
> > Wrong Thing (TM) In the current implementation those databases are
> > ASCII files, but that may change (and surely _will_ change) in the
> > future, so relying in that format will cause compatibility problems.
> > The right way to solve that issue is by adding an(other) option to
> > dpkg.
>
> Um...
>
> I don't like the idea of making dpkg itself yet more complicated.
I think that's the only acceptable way, though (as long as we take dpkg to
mean dpkg_*.deb).
Ian has in the past said (and I agree, FWIW) that tampering with the dpkg
database is extremely evil.
This very idea has come up before, incidentally, should be in the
archives. I may even have been the one to suggest it. Anyway, Ian was very
firmly convinced that this was an extremely bad idea, either way.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: