Talk:Ian Jackson

message: I am no longer the chairman of the Debian TC.  That post is now held by Bdale Garbee.  I'm still a member of the TC.  -iwj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.197.229 (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I came here in response to an RfC thinking that I would find a sentence or two explaining why the RfC was sent out. I can't find any. Let's put a concise explanation at the beginning of this, right below the RfC label. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See “Summary” below. It seems have become detached from the label in subsequent edits. Ewx (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of the RfC problem?

message: The C version was not a simple translation from Perl to C.  The C version contains a great deal of functionality which was missing or broken in the Perl script.  The perl script was only ever intended to be a stopgap.  In particular, the Perl script just used "tar" to unpack the filesystem archive whereas the C program used an existing miniature tarfile reader library (from Bruce Perens IIRC) to handle each file individually in the correct manner.  Another aspect is that the majority of the code in dpkg is error handling of one kind or another; the Perl script didn't really take much care over the consequences of errors.
There were IIRC two script versions of dpkg; the first one I inherited from Ian Murdock but may well have had other contributors.  If I remember I rewrote the first script to make a better stopgap.  The second rewrite was the one which involved rewriting the whole thing in C.  It involved significant new design decisions including the current sequencing of filesystem actions and package scripts, and it involved documenting those design decisions in what was then called the dpkg Programmers' Manual.
The source package dpkg contains both the program dpkg, and the utilities for manipulating source packages.  Those utilities I did not entirely rewrite, although during my maintainership I did make substantial changes and introduced new utilities.
The above is true to the best of my knowledge but it's been many years.  If someone wants to verify the facts independently the right way would probably be to dig out relevant ancient versions of the source and to compare the Perl and C versions.
Ijackson (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship history, redux 

message: The discussion is about the authorship of dpkg. dpkg as it stands is a C program with well over 100 contributors.
The anonymous user at 86.176.68.157 claims that the transition from its Perl predecessor to a C program (which was done by the subject of this article) was merely "porting" from one language to another, analogous to translating a novel. I’m not aware of any reference having been provided for this view.
The other view is that the C version was a substantially new program with a much greater feature set. This view is supported by dpkg's own AUTHORS file, which lists the subject of this article as its original author, and describes it as "based on" the Perl version - not merely translated or ported from it.
Ewx (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed a claim by 86.* that IWJ lied in the AUTHORS file about the authorship, under WP:BLP: it is potentially libellous. Marnanel (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No claim that he lied, merely that what was put was not factually correct. I have reverted back to the facts, and added the additional information that as well as the port, he added significant new functions, as he himself admits above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.183.167 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously uninvolved editor here from FRS.  What do the sources say?  I am familiar with how porting works, and the sources currently cited in the article seem to agree with the conclusion that he performed a sufficient level of work to be called the author of the C version.  Although I'm open to reviewing sources that back up the claim that it was a simple port. Andrew (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: : He also didn't write dpkg - He ported it from Perl to C. The real authors are detailed on the dpkg wiki page.
: Translation of a software program from one language to another is no more authorship than translating Harry Potter to Latin would be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.68.157 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the benefit of anyone confused by the above bizarre claim and the recent vandalism, it’s spillover from a usenet argument which the anonymous contributor has decided to bring to wikipedia. Ewx (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No argument involved. Wikipedia itself tells us that dpkg was written by someone else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.183.167 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Compare for example the implementation of the --list and --status options.  The structure of the two implementations is entirely different.  I don't really see how anyone could think that some kind of essentially mechanical translation had been involved.  Even a superficial look shows that this was a new program. Ewx (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior Discussion 

message: Please do not mark an edit as "minor" when it is not. The recent edits to this page misuse the "minor edit" facility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkbeast (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus "minor" edits