-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ned Ludd wrote: > How do you think we should handle it? > Should we install a post_sync in a postinst phase outside of portage's > handling if and only if not post_sync already exists? > Should we change it to handled a postsync.d by default? > Should we do both? I'm open as heck but would like to start to > finalize then document it's behavior. I feel it could be one of the > next untapped really useful features of portage. glsa-checking, news > handling, search db updating, and stuff etc..
Given the existing support for /etc/portage/bin/post_sync, the user has the freedom to do anything they want. If a program needs to make use of the post_sync trigger, it's documentation can simply state that a certain command needs the be run and the user can add that command to their post_sync script. Is that not easy and flexible enough? Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEWsnT/ejvha5XGaMRAmOsAKDTaCc4GA16hO4o24OKxOqkTFhbLgCguQEA cxh1Y3+c/o4CGWcnc+Jh8zY= =7K0g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
