Re: dpkg v2 ? I haven't heard about it, but ...
I told myself not to reply to this...I tried to not speak out but I guess
I failed. Mainly because of your pompous, arrogant, overzealous and self
righteous attitude.
On Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 09:06:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> After reading a message on -devel-announce, it's obvious that I have
> to take more seriously a rumour that I heard: namely, that a bunch of
> C++ weenies[1] wanted to rewrite dpkg. There are a number of things
> I'd like to say, in no particular order.
Wrong, it's being written in C. Error in your ASSumtion.
> * I don't think that most of dpkg needs to be rewritten.
Opinions are like...well you get the idea.
> * I am actively working on dpkg.
You might be, I have no reason to disbelieve you. TO be honest it doesn't
matter. I will continue with this project either way.
> * Many of the problems that are in current dpkg versions (particularly
> the build system) are the result of NMUs.
It's easy to push off blame on others, isn't it?
> * I shall be releasing a new maintainer-upload of dpkg into unstable
> Real Soon Now (tm).
How long has it been since the last official release?
> * One of the main reasons that dpkg is unapproachable by poor to
> mediocre programmers is that it must performs a complex task with a
> very high level of reliability [2].
>
> * I am distinctly doubtful that the core functions of dpkg are likely
> to be rewritten competently in the near future.
See, this is where I can get off calling you all those nasty names. Sorry,
but no programmer worth his code claims to know everything and lives in
the fantasy that no one else can do what he/she has done.
Apache does complex taks with a high level of reliability and so does the
Linux kernel for that matter. But the difference is that the structure and
style of the code allows other programmers no matter how ignorant, can
atleast follow what the code does. Your attitude seems to be "so what, it
means they wont try to change it and break my glorious 'god's gift' to
Debian". I hate to tell you, but that's the wrong attitude.
> * A number of competent people seem to have little difficulty working
> on dpkg.
Good source code can be worked on by more than just high level
programmers.
> [1] Please do take offence if you're one of those people who think
> that C++ and object-orientation are the right solution to nearly every
> serious programming problem, or if you find most of the dpkg source
> code difficult to understand. Otherwise this insult is not directed
> at you.
You mean you direct it to everyone who doesn't think exactly like you.
> [2] The kind of reliability that it is required is that dpkg does not
> break systems. Incorrect error messages, crashes, etc. are of course
> not good either and dpkg shouldn't have them, but not breaking
> systems, even (especially!) under error conditions, is very important.
Gee, I guess only Ian Jackson can write code like that, we should stay
away from this, we are just meager function mashers, we are not C God's
like the alimighty.
Please, if a project like this has to be started to get you off your ass,
then it was well worth it. But that fact also means I wont be quitting my
efforts, it means I will strive harder. It's always been said that the
threat of code forking and divergence are the best motivators in free
software...let's see how well it motivates you.
Ben
Reply to: