Re: libdpkg: m_fork and friends
David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 02:39 +0000, Phil Lello wrote:
I've started trying to port dpkg natively to Windows (as opposed to
One area that may cause problems is that Windows doesn't have fork
functionality, so implementing m_fork() will be challenging.
From what I've seen so far, the only time m_fork gets used in the dpkg
source is as part of the process of spawning a child to do some work,
and writing Win32 child-spawning code should be pretty simple.
This is all well and good as long as no other packages are using the
m_fork (and possibly m_pipe/m_dup2) code. So my questions are:
- Are other packages supposed to use m_fork, m_pipe, etc?
- If not, do we know of/care about packages that do use it?
- If so, would breaking API compatability to allow a Win32 port be a
Please note that my last question is badly phrased... it would _only_ be
the Win32 port that would have a changed API, specifically the functions
that can't be (easily) implemented (m_fork, possibly m_pipe/m_dup2)
would be #ifdef'd out.
Are you hosting your project somewhere?
Not yet, as I'm hoping that I can get this integrated into the main dpkg
tree, rather than forking a separate project. Failing that, a win32
branch off the dpkg svn repository would probably be the next-best solution.
I seem to be making good progress, and hope to have a patch for review
within the next week, provided there isn't negative feedback to my
questions about the libdpkg changes.