Laszlo Papp wrote:
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.
But Dan and Xavier both pointed out that exposing this function publicly
was not a good idea. You seem to have just exposed it in a different way.
Allan
