On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/07/12 06:51, Dan McGee wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Paul Barbu Gheorghe >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Barbu Paul - Gheorghe <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c | 6 ++---- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c b/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c >>> index 39eded1..b9e7cba 100644 >>> --- a/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c >>> +++ b/lib/libalpm/alpm_list.c >>> @@ -21,13 +21,11 @@ >>> #include <stdlib.h> >>> #include <string.h> >>> +#include "util.h" >>> + >>> /* libalpm */ >>> #include "alpm_list.h" >>> -/* check exported library symbols with: nm -C -D <lib> */ >>> -#define SYMEXPORT __attribute__((visibility("default"))) >>> -#define SYMHIDDEN __attribute__((visibility("internal"))) >>> - >> >> The reasoning behind this is alpm_list.c/h is a completely standalone >> set of files, so we don't link back to anything in the rest of alpm. >> With that said, the duplicates were quite on purpose and I'm not >> inclined to apply this patch. > > > Cleaning out patch backlog... > > Our choices are: > 1) accept patch > 2) add comment in alpm_list.c that it is a stand alone file > > Personally, I doubt anyone is taking alpm_list.{h,c} and using it > anywhere. There are plenty of more widely used list implementations out > there. So I do not care which solution is used. > > > @Dan: I'm going to let you have final say here. Just a yes/no needed.
I vote #2. And then switch to glib [1]. :) -Dan [1] https://developer.gnome.org/glib/2.30/glib-Pointer-Arrays.html
