On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote:
> Laszlo Papp wrote: > >> * The alpm_rmrf function is available from the api, which does the >> same as this function did, with a small sanity check. >> >> * It was worth to establish alpm_rmrf for _alpm_rmrf for pacman frontend >> as a wrapper to be able to use it in the future or for other frontend, so >> the >> function declaration was deleted in the frontend, and the new alpm_rmrf >> wrapper function was established for future usage with SYMEXPORT modifier. >> >> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> What about this approach ? >> >> > > What is different and how does this address the comments Xavier and Dan > made earlier? > > Allan > > Allan, as you see this is another approach for avoiding the unneccesary function definitition duplication between the library and the frontend. Tt's not exactly the continue of the previous theory. That's what I tried to do it, just making a wrapper and 'visible' function for the frontend to avoid the unneccesary duplication in the codebase, using the existing, working internal _alpm_rmrf function, without introducing a new insecure function or something. I can't mention easier solution for it to avoid the unneccesary replicating, maybe you've got better idea. Thanks the feedback! Best Regards, Laszlo Papp
