[pacman-dev] [PATCH 4/8] Update the event callback
jjk at jjacky.com
Fri Jan 10 08:14:37 EST 2014
On 12/15/13 13:10, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 03/12/13 06:45, Olivier Brunel wrote:
>> Instead of using two void* arguments for all events, we now send one
>> pointer to an alpm_event_t struct. This contains the type of event that
>> was triggered.
>> With this information, the pointer can then be typecasted to the
>> event-specific struct in order to get additional arguments.
>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Brunel <jjk at jjacky.com>
> I have given couple of suggestions below for naming that I think makes
> things clearer. Also a query regarding the delta event struct.
> Otherwise, this looks good.
Alright, I've rebased & updated the patches regarding all the comments
made. A couple of things before I resend them though:
- What's your opinion regarding what I mentioned before:
I don't think addressing FS#36504 was right. This was about moving the
log messages about a package being installed/upgraded/etc before the
scriptlet messages, and not after as they were. I think this might have
been a mistake:
I guess it all depends on when you consider the operation to be
completed, once pacman's extraction reached 100%, or after the scriptlet
have run. I feel the later is right, since they are part of the process
of installing/upgrading/etc a package; Of course, you may disagree.
Either way, the current situation is wrong, because right now ALPM does:
1. add log message about the operation being done
2. run scriptlet
3. signal frontend (via event) that operation is done
IOW if a frontend was to actually use the event to present its output to
the user, it wouldn't match the order in the log, which is wrong. This
was done because pacman ignores that event, only showing the progress of
the extraction, and thus people feel that it goes 1. install done; then
In fact, pacman doesn't really ignore the event, and uses it to show
(new) optdep. Should this be done before or after the scriptlet?
One could also ask, when using --noprogressbar pacman doesn't say
anything at the end of the operation (save for optdep), imagine it
would: should it be before or after the scriptlet?
As I said, I think the logging should be moved after the scriptlet have
run, as this is when the operation is really done. If you were to
disagree though, then the event should be moved before the scriptlet
run, to keep consistency between the frontend and the log (which is
broken ATM), but this just feels wrong to me, since then a frontend
would consider a package upgrade/etc done, when in fact the scriptlet
have yet to run (and produce new output relating to the operation
- Any comments on the last 3 patches (adding new events)?
More information about the pacman-dev