On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:24:08AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> Why C++? Well, personally, I have been seeing all of these
> applications pop recently that are for package management, aside from dpkg.
> Examples include dconfig and apt. Other ideas have been floating about, like
> source dependencies and binary diffs.
> I say that most of these applications would benefit greatly from
> having access to all of dpkg's functionality and variables, so nobody has to
> reinvent the wheel. I want to make all of these a part of dpkg.
That seems... the wrong way around.
One alternative that's probably worth considering is improving libdpkg, so
that Apt and friends can make use of dpkg that way, and provide their own
front ends however they see fit.
In particular, there are established ways of linking programs written in
any language against C based libraries. As far as I'm aware doing the same
to C++ (or other object-oriented languages) is a pain in the neck.
And I don't particularly think it's much of a gain to say "You want
access to dpkg's internals? Just use C++!". C++ is all well and good,
but it's not *that* good.
> Whether or not the community approves of this,
> I will pursue it, and let the chips fall where they may.
Good luck, FWIW. I've no doubt you'll need it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``There's nothing worse than people with a clue.
They're always disagreeing with you.''
-- Andrew Over
Attachment:
pgpvrvfjd5VZ8.pgp
Description: PGP signature