Re: Time to rewrite dpkg
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 the same
> to C++ (or other object-oriented languages) is a pain in the neck.
>
> 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.
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 could call "dpkg-download-apt" to use apt and so on.
That way all modules can be written in any language. They only must
share a common interface via commandline options, which all programs
can provide easily.
> > Whether or not the community approves of this,
> > I will pursue it, and let the chips fall where they may.
>
> Good luck, FWIW. I've no doubt you'll need it.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Reply to: