On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 14:53, Eli Schwartz via arch-projects
alpm_sync_newversion becomes alpm_sync_get_new_version and changes behavior slightly. See for details: https://git.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?id=e9d91a688d1a2ebe58e8a895853d... ---
DO NOT MERGE THIS until after pacman 5.2 or 6 is released.
pacman does not have any good preprocessor check for this -- the only way to handle both methods would be to implement some sort of test in setup.py and create a DEFINE based on that.
Posted here in order to be prepared, though I wouldn't mind having it exist in the pyalpm repo in a "pacman-git" branch. ;)
src/db.c | 4 ++-- src/db.h | 2 +- src/pyalpm.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/db.c b/src/db.c index 3015d61..f6c5da4 100644 --- a/src/db.c +++ b/src/db.c @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ PyObject* pyalpm_find_grp_pkgs(PyObject* self, PyObject *args) { }
/** Finds an available upgrade for a package in a list of databases */ -PyObject* pyalpm_sync_newversion(PyObject *self, PyObject* args) { +PyObject* pyalpm_sync_get_new_version(PyObject *self, PyObject* args) { PyObject *pkg; PyObject *dbs; alpm_list_t *db_list; @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ PyObject* pyalpm_sync_newversion(PyObject *self, PyObject* args) { { alpm_pkg_t *rawpkg = pmpkg_from_pyalpm_pkg(pkg); if (rawpkg) { - result = alpm_sync_newversion(rawpkg, db_list); + result = alpm_sync_get_new_version(rawpkg, db_list); } alpm_list_free(db_list); } diff --git a/src/db.h b/src/db.h index 4ed02e6..be35b78 100644 --- a/src/db.h +++ b/src/db.h @@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ PyObject *pyalpm_db_from_pmdb(void* data); int pylist_db_to_alpmlist(PyObject *list, alpm_list_t **result);
PyObject* pyalpm_find_grp_pkgs(PyObject* self, PyObject* args); -PyObject* pyalpm_sync_newversion(PyObject *self, PyObject* args); +PyObject* pyalpm_sync_get_new_version(PyObject *self, PyObject* args);
#endif diff --git a/src/pyalpm.c b/src/pyalpm.c index 56c9639..7391191 100644 --- a/src/pyalpm.c +++ b/src/pyalpm.c @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ static PyMethodDef methods[] = { "args: a list of packages, a dependency string\n" "returns: a Package object or None" },
- {"sync_newversion", pyalpm_sync_newversion, METH_VARARGS, + {"sync_newversion", pyalpm_sync_get_new_version, METH_VARARGS, "finds an available upgrade for a package in a list of databases\n" "args: a package, a list of databases\n" "returns: an upgrade candidate or None" }, -- 2.20.1
The function name changed to highlight a breaking change in behaviour. Would it therefore make sense to also rename the function on the python side?