31-08-2007, Bruce Sass > On Fri August 31 2007 07:54:51 am Ian Jackson wrote: >> > addition of libbz2 as pseudo-essential should not be a big deal, >> > it's quite small, and most of the code is duped already due to it >> > being statically linked. >> >> Why are we not using external programs for this ? Does anyone know ? > > So the package handling system doesn't stand to break because of a bug > in one of them? > >> Using external programs simplifies dpkg's build process, makes tuning >> particular installations easier, makes better use of multiple CPUs, >> and generally seems superior in almost every respect. > > except robustness, imo
Why gzip/bzip2/ar should become broken suddenly? Only due to broken installation of one's package. I tried to use broken down dpkg-deb logic for geloiwa, but installation process revealed that brokenness. The libc upgrade hurts the most, especially when old programs are segfaulting on new libc, despite of using all-old symbols and their versions. I also do think, that normal tool-for-thing thing wrapped in the reliable sh script is a good thing. The dpkg-deb must be static if binary, as tools inside shell version period. OTOH linking shell like dash statically is another question :) ____ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
