Re: Forwarded: RFC: New source packaging format
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jim writes:
> PLEASE, somebody download my demo and really try it out! I'm pleading
> with you guys. I'm sure there are lots of things that could be
> improved. I didn't really like some of the names I came up with for
> the variables - maybe somebody's got some better ideas. Maybe
> somebody could come up with a competing proposal (not just talk).
>
> I want some real feedback, not uninformed opinion.
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.
Your design sketches and arguments here have convinced me of that.
You seem to me to be completely confused or ignorant about many of the
key design issues behind both dpkg and dpkg-source.
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.
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.
Ian.
Reply to: