On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Carsten Hey wrote: > * Philipp Kern [2010-12-29 05:38 +0000]: > > On 2010-12-28, Carsten Hey <cars...@debian.org> wrote: > > > ... One reason for this is that dpkg's perl scripts were rewritten > > > in C. > > > > I know you phrased it differently but wasn't the motivation for this > > rewrite to be more robust in the base system on upgrades? I.e. do not > > rely on Perl and thus avoid adding more contraints on how the base > > upgrade must be performed to keep dpkg working properly. > > I don't know what the main motivation was, although making upgrades more > robust seems to be a possible and a good one. > > http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/RoadMap says: > | Make dpkg.deb contain only sh and C programs (to help embedded > | distros, to make it possible to remove perl-base from essential)
Both points were important for me. I have dealt with the RC bug related to perl scripts failing in various preinst during an upgrade of perl-base/liblocale-gettext-perl and it was really annoying (i.e. we only had crude work-around and no proper solution). And I also maintain customer specific embedded systems where I am using udpkg to have some basic packaging system, I was avoiding dpkg due to the perl dependency. Dropping perl-base from essential on Debian proper is not a goal, but making it barely possible for some embedded derivatives is certainly interesting for us. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101231081950.gd3...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
