Bug#136110: md5sum binary should be from textutils, not dpkg
Is it worth catering dpkg to the needs of initial porters, as opposed to
everyday users? Keeping dependancies simple would affect only a tiny
portion of people.
While I've never played w/ AIX, I have compiled/installed dpkg on
non-debian systems (ie, slackware). I don't see how requiring md5sum
would be a major issue; compile it and dpkg from source, install, and
then create debian packages from there.
Also, since dpkg could still build md5sum (make md5sum a virtual
package, and have textutils-md5sum, dkpg-md5sum, etc), there would be no
reason to have it as a build-dep.. Depending on how Glenn meant for it
to be split up.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:53:17AM -0600, Jor-el wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:24:57 -0500
> > "Andres Salomon" <dilinger@voxel.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is also a c library providing md5, one from libwww0 (packaged) and
> > another unpackaged libmd5 project
> > (ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/ghost/packages/md5.tar.gz).
> >
> > Ive been thinking for a while that md5 is generally usefull enough to be a
> > seperate package, even though its small its still good to reuse code.
> >
> > If dpkg wanted to use the unpackaged libmd5 i would be prepared to package
> > it.
> >
> Glenn,
>
> I think 'dpkg' is an example of the case where code reuse of the
> nature you mention is not necessarily a good thing. Adding additional
> build dependancies for dpkg is not a good thing if one considers the
> porting to a new OS / architecture problem. I am in the middle of a port
> to AIX and have found out that some sgml packages have to be available
> first to build dpkg docs. Which I cant install as a deb unless I first
> complete the port of dpkg. In general, I think the less chicken and egg
> type problems there are with dpkg the better.
>
> Regards,
> Jor-el
>
>
--
Andres Salomon <dilinger@voxel.net>
Voxel Dot Net, Inc. 518.269.0569
Reply to: