2007/6/29, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
Ah, there are bigger issues here, now aren't there. We don't have public accessor methods for pmdepend_t, even though we have them for pmdepmissing_t. Wow how I love libalpm. Do we really need both of these types? This seems a bit odd here.
I'll answer by a new question (libalpm/conflict.c , line 59) * TODO WTF is a 'depmissing' doing indicating a conflict?? :) So this type probably needs to be thought again anyway. We have 3 things to represent here : 1) a package depending on another (pmdepend_t) 2) an error because a dependency is missing (pmdepmissing_t) 3) an error because of a conflict (pm_depmissing_t) Not sure if they could all be combined in one. Though, there is always an infinite number of ways to represent things, so ... Anyway, there is indeed a problem with accessors..