2011/1/31 Daniel Mendler <[email protected]>: > Hi > >>> I added simple hooks support to pacman yesterday. Unfortunately I have >>> not seen before that Sascha Kruse is already working on it. My concept >>> is simpler and similar to the scriptlets. You might want to take a look >>> at it even though. >> >> My work up to this point was pretty much useless anyway. So I'll >> abandon my work for now and wait how this evolves. > > It wasn't my intentions to stop your efforts here. I just didn't want to > throw away my patches, so I sent them here. Because we both want hooks > we should combine our work :) The problem is that the patches are a bit > different. So at first we should discuss how hooks should look like.
Yes, of course. I just tried to say that your patches look far more promising than the one I did. If there's something i can help with,i will. > I like the concept with the shell-functions used in the > install-scriptlets, so I used this scheme. Furthermore I think the hooks > should be simple, this means only on a per-package (implemented in my > patch) and per-transaction base. All other cases can be handled on the > script-level (filtering for files, package names, etc). Activating a > patch is as simple as copying a file to /etc/pacman.d/hooks. I agree with the shellfunctions. But I'm not sure wether the filtering for packages and files should be done within these scripts. The pro I see in putting this logic into the scripts is that there's no need for a configuration file for the hooks (given that we differentiate between transaction-based and package-based hooks by a prefix/suffix in their name or something similar). But on the other hand are the majority of usescases for hooks that come to my mind either depending on a certain package or file. Things like updating the font-cache or do custom stuff after a kernel upgrade. > I am very interested in opinions of the development team! > Me too. greetings, Sascha
