On Wednesday 21 July 1999, at 21 h 6, the keyboard of Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to take more seriously a rumour that I heard: namely, that a bunch of > C++ weenies[1] wanted to rewrite dpkg. The "rumour" has been discussed on debian-private several times... > There are a number of things > I'd like to say, in no particular order. As a poor programmer, maintainer of a few unused packages, unable to understand the wonderful code of dpkg (I tried) and even more unable to find something in the wonderful bug list of dpkg <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/pa/l dpkg.html>, I want to add: > * I don't think that most of dpkg needs to be rewritten. As I said, I'm not unable to decipher dpkg's code with my small brain. I just see the results: 1) Long bug list, 2) Nobody dares to modify dpkg. For instance, when we discussed versioned provides, instead of talking about wether it is a good idea or not, we always stopped when someone said 'but it would mean modify dpkg'... > * I am actively working on dpkg. #1797: upgrade/downgrade dependency calculation problem Package: dpkg; Severity: grave; Reported by: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #5639, #6842, #6843, #7956; 1356 days old. ^^^^ > * Many of the problems that are in current dpkg versions (particularly > the build system) are the result of NMUs. And why so many NMUs? Because there is no active team working seriously on dpkg. > * I shall be releasing a new maintainer-upload of dpkg into unstable > Real Soon Now (tm). Good! > * One of the main reasons that dpkg is unapproachable by poor to > mediocre programmers Me! > is that it must performs a complex task with a > very high level of reliability [2]. Right. dpkg never corrupted my system, even if I like to press Control-C at the wrong time. But do not assume than anyone else is unable to do this job. > * A number of competent people seem to have little difficulty working > on dpkg. The people who make NMUs you are referring about previously? > [1] Please do take offence if you're one of those people who think > that C++ and object-orientation are the right solution to nearly every > serious programming problem, As a moronic user, I don't care: you can write it in Emacs Lisp, if you want. > or if you find most of the dpkg source > code difficult to understand. Otherwise this insult is not directed > at you. Myself, and my fellow monkeys just recently released from the zoo to install Debian systems, believe someone talks about us here?
