2011/1/31 Daniel Mendler
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