An alpm_find_satisifier equivilent is what I want too, thing is once you get the package names from that alpm_find_satisifier equivelent what are you going to do with thoes names? Probably call "info" on all of them. So why not skip that step and just have info support it.
Yes point b is what I was thinking. info("foo") would return "foo" because it matches by name, and it would also return "foo-git" because it provides "foo". Maybe it would be &type=info&by[]=provides&by[]=name rather than just "info". Point being you still get the same hunk of json that info gets you.
Would your type=provides return just package names or the same stuff info does? If its the latter it's the same as what I want but under a different name. I'm convinced that just putting that into info would be better. Looking at the code also shows that adding by[]=provides is easier to implement as it fits better to the current architecture. Glad you agree. This patch was more about opening up discussion before going in and changing a bunch of stuff. Is there any offial decision by
On 21/03/18 03:12, 尤立宇 wrote: the devs and a little guidence on how the implementation should look?