On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:20:18PM -0500, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
5) alpm.h:
- PM_ERR_MEMORY = 1, + PM_ERR_MEMORY = 2,
i think this is just a workaround for the functions returning 1 instead of -1 on error. what about reverting this change, since as far as i see you've already fixed those problematic functions?
Hmmm, I'd still like to keep this just in case there are dangling 1 returns. There should be no harm in changing this value at all. There is nowhere where it should ever be used, and no one should ever care about these values... I mean, does anyone know the value of EDEADLK?
35. to be honest the problem is that this is an api change and we use already alpm in many places. an unnecessary recompile of all the packages should be avoided if possible. yes, i know that the answer now will be "we always said pacman3 is not yet ready, we said don't use it yet - now see, why can't you guys wait?" :) so it's up to you. currently such an api change for you is not a problem, for us it is
This aligns new lines with an unclosed ( on the previous line. It is the way I prefer this.
b) please use tabs instead of 2 spaces
noet should be set on all source files, inserting tabs instead of spaces. If noet is not set, please let me know.
(there are more than one example for this problem)
Formatting has not been discussed anywhere beyond the modelines in each file, which vim always respects. I don't think calling this a "problem" is correct.
my first opensource project where i started hacking was MPlayer and there any patch that contained whitespace changes was rejected with a short "whitespace changes mixed with functional changes, rejected" message, so i'm used to do things this way. i'll try to stop blaming you because of your cosmetics ;)
Yes I'm aware, I never said it was fixed - I said i was going to do it when I had the time.
ok and thank you for your fixes udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org