Re: wip/pkgchkxx: a complete reimplementation of pkg_chk and pkg_rolling-replace

[Mike Pumford <mpumford%mudcovered.org.uk@localhost>]

On 22/07/2023 18:44, PHO wrote:

> In the beginning of my work I tried hard to stick with C. Yes, plain old 
> C. But I quickly got tired of its low-level nature. I am a Haskeller who 
> really doesn't like to code something complicated in a language just a 
> little bit convenient than ASM. So I decided to go with C++11, which is 
> still not as non-portable as Haskell, but... C++11 without Boost is 
> really a nightmare, and of course I didn't want the tool to depend on 
> Boost! So I switched to C++14 and realized that std::shared_ptr and 
> std::filesystem didn't exist in that version. This is how I ended up on 
> C++17. I knew people would hate me for requiring C++17 for the tool but 
> I thought it's okay as long as it stayed in wip :D
> I can sympathise with not wanting to use C for such a utility but I was 
a bit surprised you had to go to C++17 to get shared_ptr. That's been in 
the C++ standard since c++11. And althought I've not done much C++ on 
NetBSD I certainly didn't need c++17 to use it on linux so if you did on 
BSD something is odd. You are right about filesystem and I can see why 
that would be useful for a tool doing as much directory scanning as this 
probably needs to.

C++17 should be supported by NetBSD 10-BETA onwards so its not exactly 
an unreasonable tool choice. Although having a tool that works on at 
least 9.x would be nice although that would be possible with a pkgsrc 
GCC or clang. That said as the tool author it seems reasonable for you 
to make the choice as to what to use.

Mike