[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg musings

Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> * beter conffile handling
>   I already have this pretty much all implemented based on the proposal
>   on www.dpkg.org. It needs a better 3-way diff function (it calls
>   diff3 in a bad manner right now) and needs interpreter bindings
>   so it can replace ucf, but the basis is pretty much there.

While your API will allow for things like ucf (or aptitude) to use the
same DB as dpkg does for managing config files, it does not allow dpkg's
conffile prompting interface to be replaced. I'm thinking of a debconf
frontend or similar. It also doesn't let a standalone tool like ucf use
the same UI as does dpkg for the prompting.

I suggest having dpkg do the prompting in a standalone binary. dpkg
could provide a basic version and alternatives/diversions be used to 
replace it with other versions. Of course this standalone program would
use the API.

(No comment on the XML foo.)

>     + since we can now have an arbitrary number of files for a package
>       we can longer distribute it as seperate .orig.tar.gz, .diff.gz and
>       .dsc but we will have to put it in real package format. This
>       should be either files in a ar archive like the deb format, or
>       (my preference) a tar file.

This has the potential to make it impossible for some of us to continue
maintaining certian source packages, because we do not have enormous
amounts of bandwidth. 

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: