Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered my > 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was intended to > terminate the discussion, not start one. Sorry. Maybe it would have had more effect on me if I read it before I had already implemented my proposal. > I've read Jim's writings on this subject and he is completely wrong. > I really have better things to do with my time than argue with him > about this. Please tell me where I am wrong. In my head, at least, I haven't found a single flaw in my proposal. Maybe there is a flaw, and the point just hasn't been driven home to me yet. Most of the opposition appears to be based on the fact that I have violated some aesthetic (ie."dpkg-source is for source, dpkg-deb is for binaries") > If anyone else thinks there is any merit to Jim's proposal then I > suppose someone will have to deal with the technical details, but at > the moment I get the impression he's on his own. Same here. :-( Maybe that will change after a few more days of schooling you guys. > I would be quite happy to throw dpkg-source away if I thought its > problems were more than a few bugs and missing features. dpkg-source > is already second-generation source format for Debian, and (new) .deb > a second-generation binary package format. dpkg was rewritten at > least twice. > > I'm not unhappy to throw things away if I don't like the design or > implementation; fundamentally, though, I think the design questions > that drove me to design dpkg-source the way it is would lead me down > the same route again. The implementation quality is not ideal, and it > is lacking a few bells and whistles, but the structural design of the > programs is still reasonable IMO, and many of the proposed new > features were envisaged at time of the original design and will fit > well. Ok, I understand you don't want to get rid of dpkg-source. After all, it was a lot of work to design and build. But it needs lots of work. Could you answer these questions on the future of dpkg-source for me: 1) How do you propose modifying dpkg-source for handling additions of binary files to Debian packages (without uuencoding them)? 2) How do you propose modifying dpkg-source so that you can support sharing upstream source between packages (ie. checker)? 3) What if the upstream source comes in multiple files? How do you propose changing dpkg-source to use pristine-sources for that? 4) Can you describe an algorithm for an auto-bootstrap compilation mechanism in detail? I've already demonstrated that my proposal can do all of these things. A few more days of feedback, and I will write it up properly. > I don't need to download your code in order to be able to tell that > the design principles on which it is based are fundamentally flawed. Please tell me how. I'm sort of reluctant to scrap my proposal based on this assertion. > Alternatively, take it from me as the author of dpkg: dpkg and .deb > files are almost completely wrong for source packages. There's > nothing that a .deb file could do for a source package that couldn't > be done better and more simply by a .tar.gz file. All the features in > .deb files - including the dependency mechanisms - are closely tied to > the semantics of runtime package installation and management. Perhaps I should use rpm for my example instead? I am just arguing for the use of a packaging system for the delivery of source code, and a nice separation of the upstream source and debian-specific source directories, and the build-time temp directories. > What you're essentially trying to do is to use a screwdriver to drive > in a nail. You can't make up your mind which end of the screwdriver > you want to use - the point (dpkg), or the handle (dpkg-deb) - but > both are completely unsuited. I am approaching it from the premise that a .deb file is just an 'ar' file with two tarballs inside - one for control info and one for binaries. An upstream tarball is a binary. The Red Hat guys seemed to have figured that out. And why not use the control file? It seems to express the exact same info as a .dsc file. I though the .deb file format was perfectly suited to delivering source. Sorry for wasting your time. Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpOVytJTt6kn.pgp
Description: PGP signature