On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Oleg Verych <!gmane?olecom.ENOMSG@flower.upol.cz> wrote: > 21-09-2007, Guillem Jover: > > > > Yes, such a rewrite has crossed my mind few times, I'd say go ahead! > > What's the problem in keepeing both? Maintenance time - think about why Emdebian wants the dpkg-cross diversions to be removed. 1. We've been "maintaining" the diverted code for a decade [0] and it's a PITA. Honest, there is NO WAY I want those diversions to make it into Lenny. What is the point of creating ANOTHER instance of the same problem? 2. During all that time, dpkg developers have been busy, emdebian developers have been busy but not with dpkg. Result? Pretty obvious really, the code in the diverted scripts are almost a decade out of date. Why on earth would Debian want two versions of the same thing when it is absolutely guaranteed that one or other version will be continuously out of date. [0] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dpkg-cross/current/changelog > I like shell (not bash) and i can > not read perl. ? Why does your personal preference determine the choice of language of a script that you don't maintain ? As long as perl is not necessary to run the basic dpkg functions of install, remove and update, there isn't a problem. Embedded systems don't need perl (or bash) but embedded systems also won't be running dpkg-buildpackage. Anything capable of doing anything useful with dpkg-buildpackage won't have a problem running perl. > I can do most of the packaging stuff with shell and > sed. I can do *all* of the packaging stuff with Perl and CPAN. Last time I checked, neither you nor I are dpkg maintainers / uploaders so let's just work with those who have accepted the task of maintaining the code. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpz53TO6zo0u.pgp
Description: PGP signature