Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)

[Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On dim, mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:13 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> REFERENCES, BACKGROUND and FURTHER DISCUSSION
> 
> 
> [1] Guillem persistently reintroducing errors, wholesale
> 
> Here is an example of a big code change made by Guillem:
>   http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=4e5846ccd3dcc33504aba8ef35a8962bccfd562e
> However this is wrong as I explained here:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2007/10/msg00200.html
> 
> I also emailed Guillem privately in August 2007 to ask that he stop
> this kind of thing.
> 
> Guillem has persisted with exactly the same mistake.  For example:
>   http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=02680ecbbbf6da2b023891a11b38ecce5346dbbd
> 
> It is one thing to make a coding mistake.  Everyone makes mistakes.
> It is quite another to make a widespread change, without discussion,
> and which is even if it is correct and worthwhile only at best
> stylistically helpful.  And then, after having been told that it was
> wrong, to continue requires a dogmatic belief in one's own
> correctness.

  AHAHAHAHAHA I totally missed that part in the first read. You're
totally on crack. Under C, NULL is defined as (void *)0
(and *NOT* (char *)0 that is TOTALLY wrong for obvious reasons), and
"someone" is not going to #define NULL  0.

  I fully support Guillem changes. C99 is almost 10 years old, we're
coding dpkg for Debian, in a sane C99/POSIX/X-OPEN/whatever environment.
Or are you also coding with 6-chars long variables names because
pre-ansi C didn't required compilers to remember more than 6 chars to
distinguish variable names ?


  If you're so afraid that one of the included headers defines NULL to
'0', then just assert (__builtin_types_compatible(NULL, void *))
somewhere and be done with it. But please, (char *)0 is not only wrong,
it's also tasteless and ugly to the eye.


> [2] Reformatting changes
> 
> Guillem has been engaging in a programme of reformatting and restyling
> of dpkg's code.
> 
> See for example #375711 where I submit a patch to correct what seemed
> to me obviously a tab/space conversion error, but which turned out to
> be deliberate.  (I first asked about this on debian-dpkg the 26th of
> June 2006 and there was no reply until over a month later on the 31st
> of May, so that I was already committed to my triggers code being
> based on the original, rather Guillem's, formatting.)  See also the
> examples above.
> 
> Everyone who works on free software knows that reformatting it is a
> no-no.  You work with the coding style that's already there.

  Oo I definitely don't live in the same world than yours.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpMWFMrXthD7.pgp
Description: PGP signature