On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote: > Unfortunately, I have not got around to write tests / update man page for > these changes yet hence I never submitted the patch for review :/ I may post > it in the current state if you want to see it.
Yeah, feel free to push it in a private git repo on alioth so that we can take a look. > That's unfortunate to hear. I understand why maintaining substitution > definitions inside dpkg-dev might be unfeasible but what is wrong with > providing framework for externalizing them? In other words, if vt is dropped, > what is wrong with other substs? Sure, with regex matching one can avoid > substs at all, but substs leave less ambiguity and will always be faster > since > their result is predictable in parsing stage. The fact that we cannot rely on the long term that the substitution are stable means we'll have to deal with problems one day. But now that I think of it, it's not a wrong symbol file that would be generated, but only a non-optimal one so it might not be a big deal. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
