21-09-2007, Guillem Jover: > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 19:27:24 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: >> I really think this would make it easier in the long run to add features >> like #440636 (e.g. compatibility with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=n) and >> #4655 (i.e. more sanity checks before starting with the build). It also >> would it make easier to profit from advances in the move to real Perl >> modules. Also it enables l10n without much (programming) effort. > > Yes, such a rewrite has crossed my mind few times, I'd say go ahead! > > Maybe it would also make sense to switch dpkg-name.
If you have nothing to do... What's the problem in keepeing both? I like shell (not bash) and i can not read perl. I can do most of the packaging stuff with shell and sed. And maybe i will update/rewrite some scripts soon to be more efficient and bashless. ____ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
