Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:50:50 +1200 From: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> To: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Using shell commands versus C equivalents Message-ID: <20070618085050.348981d5@hermies.int.fubar.geek.nz> In-Reply-To: <467560F4.9050007@u.washington.edu> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0706131018120.25469@hymn01.u.washington.edu> <46703EE9.1030804@freebsd.org> <4674B268.4030502@u.washington.edu> <4674BE32.300@freebsd.org> <20070617203640.334524fc@hermies.int.fubar.geek.nz> <467560F4.9050007@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:27:32 -0700
Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Your source looks very nice, but there are a few comments:
>
> 1. How do you read BDB stuff without including the BDB headers/libs?
I don't. I've only implemented enough to reimplement
pkg_{add,delete,info}. None of these need BDB.
> 2. I can't go and graft your libs, or do something similar with the
> current source because I don't want to break production code
> (pkg_install) of this importance and muck up a lot of user's systems
> irrevocably.
I know. To use libpkg in the base would require the rest of the pkg
tools to be implemented and a lot of testing. As I haven't implemented
all the base pkg tools and testing has just been with a limited number
of packages I wouldn't want to be responsible for the breakage using
libpkg causes.
Andrew
--
Andrew Turner
http://fubar.geek.nz/blog/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070618085050.348981d5>