Previously Simon Kirby wrote: > Is this a temporary thing or bug, or has the decision been made to remove > the interface for good? ...I am hoping not. Unless you have a *very* compelling reason for me restore them I prefer not to ship them. Those routines were never meant for use in a general-purpose library. > Please, feel free to take a look at it! It requires gtk and gnome, and > dpkg-dev (but I developed it with dpkg-1.4.1.19, dpkg-1.6.1 removes the > interfaces I was using). I'll try it tomorrow. > I decided to use libdpkg over libapt because I am not familiar with C++, > and libapt seems to be making use of C++ heavily. libapt is much more powerful then libdpkg; libdpkg implements (parts of ) the lowlevel package management code. libapt contains more high-level code to handle multiple package archives, downloading, etc. As such it is a more suitable base for package management frontends. > Being relatively new to Debian and dpkg as well (I used to use > Slackware..eek :)), I only recently noticed that APT seems to now be > the preferred interface. Are there any libapt C interfaces in the > works, or am I stuck between a rock and a hard place? I'm afraid you're stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.. what you can do is use libdpkg.a which is build in the dpkg build process. > ...Also, is this a list I can subscribe to, or just an internal list of > people involved? I'd definitely like to get involved as much as possible > so I can track what's happening and avoid things like this happening in > the future. The list is debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org. You can subscribe by sending an email with the subject `subscribe' to debian-dpkg-request@lists.debian.org . Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgp8Cy0NbasPN.pgp
Description: PGP signature