Correct alpm version to bind to?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Correct alpm version to bind to?

Colin Woodbury
Hi all, I'm the Aura dev. I'm writing alpm bindings for it, and I got a
fair distance through before I realized that my up-to-date paper copies and
the version of `alpm.h` actually bundled with pacman on my machine are
quite different. The local one (/usr/include/alpm.h) is dated 2016 and has
types / function signatures that vary a fair amount from what's currently
on master, although they both report their versions to be 10.0.1.

Is the most recent alpm supposed to be bundled with pacman? What
incarnation of alpm does our installed pacman (5.0.1-5 as of this writing)
bind to itself? Which version should be considered the "ground truth" for
people writing bindings?

Thanks,
Colin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Correct alpm version to bind to?

Allan McRae
On 13/06/17 13:12, Colin Woodbury wrote:

> Hi all, I'm the Aura dev. I'm writing alpm bindings for it, and I got a
> fair distance through before I realized that my up-to-date paper copies and
> the version of `alpm.h` actually bundled with pacman on my machine are
> quite different. The local one (/usr/include/alpm.h) is dated 2016 and has
> types / function signatures that vary a fair amount from what's currently
> on master, although they both report their versions to be 10.0.1.
>
> Is the most recent alpm supposed to be bundled with pacman? What
> incarnation of alpm does our installed pacman (5.0.1-5 as of this writing)
> bind to itself? Which version should be considered the "ground truth" for
> people writing bindings?
>


The latest release version is 5.0.2.  This has not made it to Arch Linux
yet, but has no API change from 5.0.1.

The work on master, is the future pacman 5.1.  There is currently no
schedule for when that will be released.

Allan
Loading...