Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Introduce a new structure to represent package requirements #99

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2019

Conversation

doom
Copy link
Member

@doom doom commented Aug 15, 2019

With that change, the previous PackageRequirement structure was renamed to SoftPackageRequirement, and the new structure took its original name.

With that change, the previous PackageRequirement structure was renamed
to SoftPackageRequirement, and the new structure took its original name.
@doom doom requested a review from Arignir August 15, 2019 16:11
@@ -38,16 +38,16 @@ impl PackageRequirement {

/// Creates a package requirement that matches the given [`PackageFullName`] and version requirement.
#[inline]
pub fn from_id(id: &PackageID) -> PackageRequirement {
PackageRequirement {
pub fn from_id(id: &PackageID) -> SoftPackageRequirement {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This somehow wasn't implemented as a From<PackageID>, I opened an issue for it: see #100


/// Creates a package requirement that matches the given [`PackageFullName`] and version requirement.
#[inline]
pub fn from_id(id: &PackageID) -> PackageRequirement {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This somehow wasn't implemented as a From<PackageID> for SoftPackageRequirement, I opened an issue for it: see #100

@Arignir Arignir merged commit 29840c1 into raven-os:master Aug 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants