Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:27:10PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
> Besides, as I said, at this stage, do the analysis, not the coding.  It can
> always be scrapped if it looks like it would be pointless, but I'd like to
> see some non-emotive reasons not to even _consider_ it.

here's a non-emotive reason:

dpkg has to be able to run on 386 and 486 boxes and m68k machines and
other old, slow hardware. any program which can't run on older hardware
is not going to replace the current dpkg...it just won't happen (at
least until debian stops officially supporting 386 and 486 hardware,
which wont be for a long time).

C++ may be OO, but it's not very good OO....and it tends to compile into
code which is both bloated and slow.

dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow on
a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the status and available files have
over 3300 packages detailed in them.

craig

--
craig sanders