Hi, On Wed, 09 Feb 2011, sean finney wrote: > so i didn't exactly leave in a huff, but i did signal that i had > no further intention of wasting my time until i had some idea > that it would actually go anywhere.
I'm sorry for all this. The problem is that Guillem is a single point of failure in terms of reviewing C code for dpkg. Thanks to recent work, I'm more at ease with the C part of dpkg and I fully intend to help him in that task so that we don't miss such opportunities in the future. > my changes were directly into dpkg, with the intention to incorporate > the ucf feature set into dpkg proper. my thinking was that dpkg really > ought to keep the pristine version of these files around *anyway*, since > it could be a generally useful thing to have. > > in hindsight maybe i should have worked with manoj to implement a libucf > and supply a finished product usable by dpkg. hmm... I'm not sure it would have changed anything. I think you took the right technical approach. AFAIR the only thing that lacked to me was a sort of formal specification that can be discussed separately before the implementation itself. Most of the blame is on the dpkg maintainers on this one. I do hope we will see this completed in the wheezy timeframe. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
