On 06/21/19 at 03:24pm, Morgan Adamiec wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 05:46, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: > > > > On 14/6/19 11:26 pm, Dave Reisner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:19:52PM +0100, Morgan Adamiec wrote: > > >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 14:09, Dave Reisner <d...@falconindy.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:51:14AM +0100, morganamilo wrote: > > >>>> libarchive uses 1 for EOF, not 0. Instead of using the actual ints, use > > >>>> libarchive's error codes. > > >>>> --- > > >>>> > > >>>> By the way, not familiar with doxygen. Is my wording fine or is there > > >>>> some built in "see also" functionality? > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/alpm.h b/lib/libalpm/alpm.h > > >>>> index ffb2ad96..ece894cf 100644 > > >>>> --- a/lib/libalpm/alpm.h > > >>>> +++ b/lib/libalpm/alpm.h > > >>>> @@ -1326,7 +1326,8 @@ struct archive *alpm_pkg_mtree_open(alpm_pkg_t > > >>>> *pkg); > > >>>> * @param pkg the package that the mtree file is being read from > > >>>> * @param archive the archive structure reading from the mtree file > > >>>> * @param entry an archive_entry to store the entry header information > > >>>> - * @return 0 if end of archive is reached, non-zero otherwise. > > >>>> + * @return ARCHIVE_OK on success, ARCHIVE_EOF if end of archive is > > >>>> reached, > > >>>> + * otherwise an error occured (see archive.h). > > >>> > > >>> Please, no. Let's not leak details from libarchive in our own API. > > >>> > > >>>> */ > > >>>> int alpm_pkg_mtree_next(const alpm_pkg_t *pkg, struct archive > > >>>> *archive, > > >>>> struct archive_entry **entry); > > >>>> -- > > >>>> 2.21.0 > > >> > > >> Why not? The return value is exactly that. If libarchive's return > > >> codes suddenly changed then so would libalpms's. Plus pacman itself > > >> already uses ARCHIVE_OK to check the return code. And finally if we > > >> did not depend on magic numbers then the doc wouldn't be wrong in the > > >> first place. > > > > > > Because users of libalpm should only need to understand libalpm and not > > > concern themselves with details of libarchive. Exposing ARCHIVE_* in > > > libalpm is a leaky abstraction. > > > > > > If the code is broken (and it sounds like it is), then it should be > > > fixed along with the documentation. > > > > > > > Agreed. Not this is the only place in pacman we use an ARCHIVE_* > > value, so this is broken. > > > > src/pacman/check.c: while(alpm_pkg_mtree_next(pkg, mtree, &entry) == > > ARCHIVE_OK) { > > Would is then also make sense to do `typedef struct archive > alpm_mtree_t` or something similar?
I already said this on IRC, but, for the record, I don't see a need for a full alpm mtree implementation. I wouldn't reject it if somebody really wanted to put in that effort, but it seems like a lot of work to reimplement libarchive's entire archive_entry_* API for little gain. Personally, I'd just delete this function and alpm_pkg_mtree_close.