Hi, On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:38:24AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 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.
Ok, makes sense. > 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. Agreed. > > 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. Well, I have not looked into the coding guidelines, yet. I'll look into that. Re-Using existing libraries, where it makes sense, however is always the way to go (for that reason I'm already using Dpkg::Version ;) > 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). Hmm. I'm not really sure, if ::Status would be the right name, but on the OTOH you, as a dpkg maintainer, know better. Besides that: The idea in general is good. I guess I'll rewrite DPKG::Log as Dpkg::Log to be a common class, implementing the common interface for dpkg logfiles and Dpkg::Log::Status extending that. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org