Re: libdpkg: m_fork and friends
lkcl luke writes ("Re: libdpkg: m_fork and friends"):
> um... is there any chance of redesigning dpkg to not require fork?
> popen looks like it could be used in movecontrolfiles; likewise in
dpkg was never intended to be portable to not-at-all-unix-like
systems. I'm afraid you are probably onto a loser.
> ok, i'm labouring the point: is there any situation in dpkg where
> fork *isn't* used to do the same job as popen?
You mean, does it fork and then continue in both child and parent
without calling exec ? I don't think there are any irremoveable cases
of this but any removeable cases will probably involve intrusive
Also note that dpkg depends fundamentally on traditional unix
filesystem semantics, which are not generally available on Windows
(and if anything resembling them is, the performance is very poor).