On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:03:33PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
But there seem to be enough C++ deevelopers around here, and more and more
C++ is mostly popular because microsoft is using it, ...
will follow (if you haven't noticed, on universities they teach Scheme, Java
, Perl and C++,
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Why am i continually getting this stupid message:
Post Office wrote:
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ed Breen
Marek Habersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:03:46AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
3. Most programmers would write code in C
Yeah, uh. But that's the point isn't it?
No, that's the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go for it. Have fun. Document and read. There has been quite some
discussion
on this subject.
My only comment is that apt will likely be on a boot disk near you real soon
so libc++ is there too.
Great, I just love apt.
Make not of dpkg's short comings. Aim
Marek Habersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)]
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
Notably, I'm going to be writing it in C++. This will add about 270k
to the boot disks' root image, but as the floppy install methods are for the
most part phasing out under the
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I think its a bad idea to say You want to access to dpkg, programm in
XXX. All interaction should be via a call to dpkg itself. Also
modules should be programs by itself and not linked.
dpkg would then call dpkg-download-ftp
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I think its a bad idea to say You want to access to dpkg, programm in
XXX. All interaction should be via a call to dpkg itself. Also
modules should be programs by itself and not linked.
dpkg would then call dpkg-download-ftp to download a package via
ftp, or it
Marek == Marek Habersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marek * Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho said:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:01:12PM -0700, Aaron Van
Couwenberghe wrote:
Polymorphism is such an obvious pillar of structured
programming that I can't understand how anybody could
Please -- all replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eduardo == E O Fredrik Liljegren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eduardo On a computer without CD-ROM one has to start by
Eduardo disk, but that's ok.
Do you mean floppy, or the hard-disk option?
Eduardo Then you get the option of NFS, but not
Eduardo
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Besides, any advantage in a nice OO design is lost by implementing it in C++!
There is no need to do it in C++. My whole point is that I think an OO
methodology would work well in this case simply due to the maintainability
And thus spake Daniel James Patterson, on Fri, May 21, 1999 at 09:30:31AM +1000:
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Besides, any advantage in a nice OO design is lost by implementing it in
C++!
There is no need to do it in C++. My whole point is that I
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:20:20AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
Argo-UML. It's a UML design tool, designed to export Java; however, its
nature makes it useful for any (distributed or otherwise) OO design project.
I don't have a URL with me.
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
We all are blinded by dpkg. It works, yes. How long? The current
sources don't even build properly out of the box. Problems are
cropping up without people knowing how to fix them (see the bug
list). Even very simple patches and changes need months to get into
yet
methods are phasing out is just plainly wrong. Currently we have three
ways of booting the installation system: bootable CDs (requires a modern
BIOS), floppy disk and bootp (requires a netword card with the proper
ROM, and a bootp+tftp server on the same network). Our bootable CDs use a
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think a good object-oriented design can be easier to follow too.
In circumstances where there is naturally some use for inheritance
it is very useful indeed. I don't see any natural inheritance in
managing packages, though.
Just FYI,
this is the response I got from swim's author. There's the URL I didn't
have in my last mail ...
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog 0C4CABF1 http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/
---BeginMessage---
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:24:08AM -0700, Aaron
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)]
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:24:08AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
...
In particular, there are established ways of linking programs written in
any language against C based libraries. As far as I'm aware doing
* Ossama Othman said:
Why? Tell me how I pass a C++ object to C, Fortran or Pascal.
The same way you pass fortran to C: use wrappers, for example. Here is
one way of passing a static C++ method to a C function (e.g. signal
system call) in C++ code:
extern C void
Base_cleanup (void
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:37:53AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
As far as writing it, no. As far as getting something like this accepted,
it's going to take time, no question about it.
I think I'll be looking forward to seeing your code.
Oh, um, I didn't mean to downplay the
Hi,
extern C void
Base_cleanup (void *object, void *)
{
Base::cleanup (object, 0);
}
Simple. :-)
Perhaps, but not clean. And doesn't make sense in this particular case...
Remember the rule of the Ockham's Razor I think it should be obeyed
here...
What's not clean
Hi Marek,
On 19 May, Marek Habersack wrote:
* Ossama Othman said:
, but rather to it's
implementation on the GNU platform, which is now in its young days - it's
constantly changing, the features are being added, standard being
implemented in more and more detail. This situation will no
* Ossama Othman said:
Simple. :-)
Perhaps, but not clean. And doesn't make sense in this particular case...
Remember the rule of the Ockham's Razor I think it should be obeyed
here...
What's not clean about it? It's a very simple wrapper? Also, what
doesn't make sense? It
* Ossama Othman said:
Why? Tell me how I pass a C++ object to C, Fortran or Pascal.
The same way you pass fortran to C: use wrappers, for
example. Here is
one way of passing a static C++ method to a C function (e.g. signal
system call) in C++ code:
extern C void
* Ossama Othman said:
Hi, Ossama
implementation on the GNU platform, which is now in its young days - it's
constantly changing, the features are being added, standard being
implemented in more and more detail. This situation will no doubt incurr
many changes both in the source code
I'm closing this discussion for now. I know what I have in mind, and why C++
is better in this scenario than C. But I don't want to incite any more
flamage; once again I say that I won't be forcing anyone to use this thing.
It's only a personal project, and if anyone wants to use it after I'm
* Brent Fulgham said:
Simple. :-)
Perhaps, but not clean. And doesn't make sense in this
particular case...
Remember the rule of the Ockham's Razor I think it should
be obeyed
here...
I think the real problem is in trying to export a language-specific
construct to
On 20 May, Marek Habersack wrote:
* Ossama Othman said:
What's not clean about it? It's a very simple wrapper? Also, what
doesn't make sense? It has been taken out of context so you don't know
what it is used for but it conveys the general idea, I think. I'm
Oh, you got me wrong
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
Yes, I see everyone's points. I know what you're saying. I'll keep it in
mind; you've made your arguments. I just would like to see an end to this
fledgling flamefest ;P
Well, I saw no flames... Just a discussion but, hey, who am I to judge...?
marek
* Ossama Othman said:
mean, you can buy a small car - a shopping bag on wheels and then buy a
new engine just to be able to tow a trailer :)) - it is possible, but not
cost-effective and sensible - you can buy a larger and stronger car at once
:)). Maybe the example isn't perfect, but
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:12:51PM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
Ideally, a library would (in addition to it's C++ functionality) have
a C interface that doesn't really deal with the issue of objects.
Say, something that would accept some standard C types and structs,
and return same.
in other
to rewrite dpkg. I'm assuming
that you want to completely rewrite dpkg as a replacement for the
current dpkg. A sort of dpkg2 persay. If your dpkg does eventually
become the new standard, then the language you decide to use is very
important.
The interoperability subject isn't really a big
Hi Aaron,
I would be interested in seeing your design. It may clear up some
concerns as to why you are picking your language (which seems to have
generated quite a discussion). More importantly, you may receive
suggestions as to ways to improve the design. If you are lucky, you may
even have a
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:22:28AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
A better question is how a revised C++-ish library might interoperate with
an object-oriented language designed to make use of polymorphism,
abstraction, etc. Say, how Python might work as a front end, or how you
might use
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:15:00AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
The standards don't change that fast, but I'm talking about the
_implementation_. The g++ compiler still has problems and unimplemented
standard C++ elements - again, rtti and exceptions come to mind, not to
mention templates.
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:01:12PM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:50:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
That seems... the wrong way around.
see comments below ;P
Perhaps I should expand on that. The `Unix way' (yes, you can stop reading
this paragraph here, if
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:24:08AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
[...]
Notably, I'm going to be writing it in C++. This will add about 270k
to the boot disks' root image, but as the floppy install methods are for the
most part phasing out under the shadow of easier methods, I'm not
Aaron Van Couwenberghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have grown increasingly aware of FUD of this type about C++ and OO
languages. OO is designed to *increase* interoperability, flexibility, and
extensibility -- definately not the other way around.
OO isn't limited to C++, and C++ isn't limited
Aaron Van Couwenberghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, esteemed members of the Debian enthusiast community!
Hi
...
So, whether or not I recieve the approval of this community, I'm
going to be working on a complete rewrite of dpkg. No, it won't even
*resemble* the old dpkg; I
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare
ya! :-)
I don't see why not.
Software is becomming more and more complex, people are
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:25:17PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
There are a few OO tools (I'm thinking Rational Rose
in particular) that can do code generation from UML work, which could mean
that we could decide on a design
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:44:02AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
Polymorphism is such an obvious pillar of structured programming that I
can't understand how anybody could live without it.
Is it? AFAICS none of the traditional languages like Pascal or C has
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho said:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:01:12PM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
Polymorphism is such an obvious pillar of structured programming that I
can't understand how anybody could live without
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:44:02AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
1. you create a C library with all the dpkg functionality inside
2. you compile and link it as a shared library
3. you write several simple drivers to interface the user to that library
4. the .so is loaded only ONCE - that's
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:44:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Speaking of baser instincts, Rationale Rose isn't free software, is it?
Are there any nice (or even not-nice) OO design tools that are?
No unfortunatley it isnt. There is a solaris version, which is a bad port
of the win32
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:25:17PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare
ya! :-)
I
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:14:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
How about it's complete overkill?
I don't think so. Yes you can write maintainable code with plain C,
but with the number of developers moving in and out of Debian, I think
that a decent OO approach for core software could make it
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:53:23PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
But the problem is that templates, nor exceptions or rtti (which are all
elements of MODERN C++ programming) don't work well enough on the GNU
platform...
Is that true, I have heard this agrument often, but is it true, and is it
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 04:00:43PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:53:23PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
But the problem is that templates, nor exceptions or rtti (which are all
elements of MODERN C++ programming) don't work well enough on the GNU
platform...
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:54:45PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:44:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Speaking of baser instincts, Rationale Rose isn't free software, is it?
Are there any nice (or even not-nice) OO design tools that are?
No
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:14:31AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:45:45PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:44:02AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
Polymorphism is such an obvious pillar of
Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:24:08AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
[...]
Notably, I'm going to be writing it in C++. This will add
about 270k to the boot disks' root image, but as the floppy
install methods are for the most part phasing
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 03:34:27PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Something like
Objective Caml version 2.02
# let id x = x ;;
val id : 'a - 'a = fun
---
Not sure, but i think we are not talking with the same definition of
the same word ?
C++ isn't a
* Sven LUTHER said:
Polymorphism is such an obvious pillar of structured programming that I
can't understand how anybody could live without it.
Is it? AFAICS none of the traditional languages like Pascal or C has
polimorphism at its base...
What you call polymorphism is just function
* Sven LUTHER said:
Agreed. Too bad C++ does not support parametric polymorphism too well.
Templates come close, so the hope is not lost.
But the problem is that templates, nor exceptions or rtti (which are all
elements of MODERN C++ programming) don't work well enough on the GNU
* Sven LUTHER said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:44:02AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
1. you create a C library with all the dpkg functionality inside
2. you compile and link it as a shared library
3. you write several simple drivers to interface the user to that library
4. the .so is
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho said:
Is that true, I have heard this agrument often, but is it true, and is it
still
so today ? Is there effort made to fix this ? how far are they ?
I haven't used RTTI, but in my experience templates work without problems
and exceptions work most of the time
* Sven LUTHER said:
Is that true, I have heard this agrument often, but is it true, and is it
still
so today ? Is there effort made to fix this ? how far are they ?
I haven't used RTTI, but in my experience templates work without problems
I also heard that templates bloat the
* Hamish Moffatt said:
mention templates. And I remember how did the C++ interface, in binary
This was certainly true in g++ 2.7.x, but egcs seems much better.
Much better, yes, but it's still not finished.
(Exceptions and templates anyway; I don't know what rtti is.)
RTTI stands for
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
The answer is - you can't... All the languages you mentioned have clean C
interacing methods, but no C++ ones. The reason is that C++ is not
interoperable.
No, no, no! one word for everyone. CORBA!
I'm sorry to say that, but dream on...
marek
* Brandon Mitchell said:
Hi Aaron,
I would be interested in seeing your design. It may clear up some
concerns as to why you are picking your language (which seems to have
I would like to see it as well. So far, not even a single argument has been
presented to justify the selection of C++ -
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 03:07:03PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
I also heard that templates bloat the code
Depends on how you use them. Templates work by duplicating code.
what size are your executable compared to equivalent C stuff,
Equivalent C code? For every template in C++ the equivalent
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:25:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But yes, you can write an id() function which behaves differently depending
on what is passed to it.
You misunderstand. id is the identity function, defined for all types
and returns what it is given. In C++ terms, then:
template
Hi,
This mail is ignoring Aaron's request for peace over this topic, but I am
not the person who can keep silent if there are obvious mistakes to point
out.
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:39:39AM -0400, Dan Nguyen wrote:
Well your subject says it all Time to rewrite dpkg. I'm assuming
that you
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:02:09PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
This mail is ignoring Aaron's request for peace over this topic,
[...]
but it should have not. Please ignore my last mail on this topic. I just
noticed that the general discussions was vastly ahead of your contribution.
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
This mail is ignoring Aaron's request for peace over this topic, but I am
I just can't resist writing it: there was NO war on this subject, so why do
you and Aaron want to make peace?
become the new standard, then the language you decide to use is very
important.
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
[...]
but it should have not. Please ignore my last mail on this topic. I just
noticed that the general discussions was vastly ahead of your contribution.
Too late :))) I just responded :)
marek
pgpHQENkp6Wkz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:03:46AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
3. Most programmers would write code in C
Yeah, uh. But that's the point isn't it?
The current dpkg is written in C. How many programmers are working on it?
The only contributions to our packaging systems today are done with C++
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
But the problem is that templates, nor exceptions or rtti (which are all
elements of MODERN C++ programming) don't work well enough on the GNU
platform...
It would be silly to try to use all features of such a complex language as
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:03:46AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
3. Most programmers would write code in C
Yeah, uh. But that's the point isn't it?
No, that's the reality.
The current dpkg is written in C. How many programmers are working on it?
Again, that's not
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
But the problem is that templates, nor exceptions or rtti (which are all
elements of MODERN C++ programming) don't work well enough on the GNU
platform...
It would be silly to try to use all
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:27:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
C++ may be OO, but it's not very good OOand it tends to compile into
code which is both bloated and slow.
dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow on
a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the status
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:39:32PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But the decisions are made by
people who to do the work.
Not in this case. This is not their graduate project, nor an experiment.
It's a package which the entire Debian distribution
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:47:00PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
The current dpkg is written in C. How many programmers are working on it?
Again, that's not an argument. People come and people go, and more of them
know C than C++. Besides, ech..., how can you draw an argument like this???
I
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:50:26PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
And note that development will just start. By the time this project enters a
critical stage, egcs will be improved again.
No, the development shouldn't start yet. A project should be presented to
the iterested people and a
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
Again, that's not an argument. People come and people go, and more of them
know C than C++. Besides, ech..., how can you draw an argument like this???
I can because I see what's happening to dpkg and it worries me.
We all are blinded by dpkg. It works, yes. How
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:50:26PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
And note that development will just start. By the time this project
enters a
critical stage, egcs will be improved again.
No, the development shouldn't start yet. A project should be presented to
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:25:17PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
a networkable server for polymorphic
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But the decisions are made by
people who to do the work.
Not in this case. This is not their graduate project, nor an experiment.
It's a package which the entire Debian distribution relies on
You're wrong, reread
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow on
a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the status and available files have
over 3300 packages detailed in them.
Yeah, it's slow, and it's written in C.
Linux is slow. It's written in C. Yeah...
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:55:59PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
I'm sorry, but you seem to be arrogant here. You cut the DISCUSSION with
statements like this instead of saying anything reasonable.
I said that I don't agree with you, and that I think your arguments against
C++ are invalid. I
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare
ya! :-)
Wowch! Nothing against CORBA, I love it, but if I think about the overhead.
I
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:27:10PM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:14:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
How about it's complete overkill?
I don't think so. Yes you can write maintainable code with plain C,
but with the number of developers moving in and out
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:02:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see anything in the Debian packaging system which fits
OO very well at all. We have just one type of package; there are no
special sub-types, for example.
Then you're not
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:45:09PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:27:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
C++ may be OO, but it's not very good OOand it tends to compile
into code which is both bloated and slow.
dpkg is already far too slow on old
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 10:07:09PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
I have just one question to you - have you read the ENTIRE thread??? Or just
several lines? If so, then please go back AND READ IT. Only then you have a
right to jump upon me like that. Before you joined the discussion, we were
* Branden Robinson said:
several lines? If so, then please go back AND READ IT. Only then you have a
right to jump upon me like that. Before you joined the discussion, we were
DISCUSSING matters, now we're FIGHTING and flaming each other. Thank you.
What is there to discuss with you?
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
Now you've proven it. You're a fanatic. And you offend people. Thanks.
there's no excuse for personal attacks. if you have a point to make,
then make it but don't stoop to ad hominem attacks.
i think i'll just ignore the rest of
*Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:03:46AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
3. Most programmers would write code in C
Yeah, uh. But that's the point isn't it?
The current dpkg is written in C. How many programmers are working on it?
I've often wondered about that.
*Marek Habersack wrote:
Yes, yes. But you won't be able to use perl with C++ libraries.
If you use the C interface to the C++ libraries, and reimplement OO
in perl, yes you can. And the C++ wrapping has improved to the point that
people are using it directly for some projects.
--
John
Hello, esteemed members of the Debian enthusiast community!
Over the last year and a half, as I have been involved in the Debian
project, dpkg's shortcomings have been becoming ever more clear to me.
Anybody who has worked any significant amount on dpkg knows that its sources
are
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:24:08AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
Why C++? Well, personally, I have been seeing all of these
applications pop recently that are for package management, aside from dpkg.
Examples include dconfig and apt. Other ideas have been floating about, like
Hello, esteemed members of the Debian enthusiast community!
So, whether or not I recieve the approval of this community, I'm
going to be working on a complete rewrite of dpkg. No, it won't even
*resemble* the old dpkg; I guarantee it to become contraversial. I'll let
the masses
Hellow Aaron and fellow Debian enthusiasts. :-)
Aaron, I would like to get involved with your attempt at rewriting
dpkg, especially since it is something I've considered attempting.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Center for Distributed Object Computing, Washington University, St.
Hi Anthony,
On 20 May, Anthony Towns wrote:
One alternative that's probably worth considering is improving libdpkg, so
that Apt and friends can make use of dpkg that way, and provide their own
front ends however they see fit.
I don't think that is a complete solution. Improving libdpkg
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
Notably, I'm going to be writing it in C++. This will add about 270k
to the boot disks' root image, but as the floppy install methods are for the
most part phasing out under the shadow of easier methods, I'm not going to
Are you sure about that? If yes, the
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 10:03:12AM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
Hi Anthony,
And I don't particularly think it's much of a gain to say You want
access to dpkg's internals? Just use C++!. C++ is all well and good,
but it's not *that* good.
Hrm. I would have to disagree with you. Using
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
