Hi, On Tue, 01 Mar 2011, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > Well, I've written DPKG::Log because I had a need for it and thought > it could be useful for others. Merging it into the dpkg codebase is > probably a good idea and so I'm revisiting that idea with this mail. > I see one problem, however. > My library, DPKG::Log, is written purely in Perl. I didn't see a big > need to implement it in C, because after all log processing > isn't something you do on an embedded system, I guess. > Now, AFAICT, it is one of the dpkg maintainers goals, to implement > dpkg-tools in C, isn't it? > Would this be a problem?
It would be a problem if we target this for the "dpkg" package but we could introduce a "dpkg-utils" package where Perl would not be a problem. Furthermore Dpkg::Log itself has its place in libdpkg-perl. There's no reason for this tool to be integrated in the "dpkg" binary package since it's not at all required to perform package installations. > Apart from that: I'm dependend on that tool and therefore I'd > hate to submit and forget. So would it still be possible to > take care for DPKG::Log/dpkg-report, if it would get merged > into the dpkg codebase? Sure, you're more than welcome to take care of it! Now, I have not yet looked into your code. But merging it supposes that you follow our conventions and reuse our existing Perl libraries when it makes sense. I suggest you look into some of the existing Dpkg::* module, that you read doc/coding-style.txt and that you try submitting a Dpkg::Log::Status module (yes there could be Log modules to parse other files like the alternatives log file so it's best to use a dedicated module from the start). If you have any question, feel free to ask. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org