> > 2. A new list for pkginfos looks ugly imho. > > > > What do you mean by 'ugly'? Is it redundant given other data > structures in libalpm? If so, I will be happy to switch to another > data structure. Xavier already pointed out that pmgraph_t may fit > the bill. I'll definitely look into it. Or maybe you meant something > else by 'ugly'? I'm not sure ... >
Well, this is subjective. I don't like these "_alpm_findinfo()" calls and double (list) bookkeeping. However, after thinking a bit I have no better idea atm [probably in the future we should introduce a "transaction package" type (successor of pmsyncpkg_t) to store internal data (including delta_path etc.)], and this is a minor issue (we can rework this part easily later, if needed), so I revoke my complaint ;-) Bye _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
