On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 27/07/12 06:51, Dan McGee wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Paul Barbu Gheorghe <barbu.paul.gheorghe@gmail.com> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Barbu Paul - Gheorghe <barbu.paul.gheorghe@gmail.com> --- lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c b/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c index 39eded1..b9e7cba 100644 --- a/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c +++ b/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c @@ -21,13 +21,11 @@ #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> +#include "util.h" + /* libalpm */ #include "alpm_list.h" -/* check exported library symbols with: nm -C -D <lib> */ -#define SYMEXPORT __attribute__((visibility("default"))) -#define SYMHIDDEN __attribute__((visibility("internal"))) -
The reasoning behind this is alpm_list.c/h is a completely standalone set of files, so we don't link back to anything in the rest of alpm. With that said, the duplicates were quite on purpose and I'm not inclined to apply this patch.
Cleaning out patch backlog...
Our choices are: 1) accept patch 2) add comment in alpm_list.c that it is a stand alone file
Personally, I doubt anyone is taking alpm_list.{h,c} and using it anywhere. There are plenty of more widely used list implementations out there. So I do not care which solution is used.
@Dan: I'm going to let you have final say here. Just a yes/no needed.
I vote #2. And then switch to glib [1]. :) -Dan [1] https://developer.gnome.org/glib/2.30/glib-Pointer-Arrays.html