Re: Bug#608930: Merging DPKG::Log into dpkg codebase
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Well, I've written DPKG::Log because I had a need for it and thought
> it could be useful for others. Merging it into the dpkg codebase is
> probably a good idea and so I'm revisiting that idea with this mail.
> I see one problem, however.
> My library, DPKG::Log, is written purely in Perl. I didn't see a big
> need to implement it in C, because after all log processing
> isn't something you do on an embedded system, I guess.
> Now, AFAICT, it is one of the dpkg maintainers goals, to implement
> dpkg-tools in C, isn't it?
> Would this be a problem?
It would be a problem if we target this for the "dpkg" package but
we could introduce a "dpkg-utils" package where Perl would not be
a problem. Furthermore Dpkg::Log itself has its place in libdpkg-perl.
There's no reason for this tool to be integrated in the "dpkg" binary
package since it's not at all required to perform package installations.
> Apart from that: I'm dependend on that tool and therefore I'd
> hate to submit and forget. So would it still be possible to
> take care for DPKG::Log/dpkg-report, if it would get merged
> into the dpkg codebase?
Sure, you're more than welcome to take care of it!
Now, I have not yet looked into your code. But merging it supposes
that you follow our conventions and reuse our existing Perl libraries
when it makes sense.
I suggest you look into some of the existing Dpkg::* module, that you read
doc/coding-style.txt and that you try submitting a Dpkg::Log::Status
module (yes there could be Log modules to parse other files like the
alternatives log file so it's best to use a dedicated module from the
If you have any question, feel free to ask.
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)