[pacman-dev] alpm-hooks: OVERRIDING HOOKS

Sean Enck enckse at gmail.com
Sun Mar 18 01:50:11 UTC 2018

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 9:28 PM, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org>

> On 03/17/2018 07:38 PM, Sean Enck wrote:
> > I figured that it was spelled out somewhere...it is more that whatever
> that
> > one-way doc pattern was going to be (pacman.conf -> alpm-hooks) makes the
> > context for understanding the "OVERRIDING HOOKS" section tougher to
> consume
> > from alpm-hooks (e.g. there is no "See Also: pacman.conf").
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Andrew Gregory <
> andrew.gregory.8 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/17/18 at 10:36pm, Sean Enck wrote:
> >>> If you read the "man alpm-hooks" it alludes to a priority-based
> directory
> >>> overriding behavior. But the directory/priority queue for when hooks
> are
> >>> loaded isn't stated [0]
> >>>
> >>> Some quick searching indicates: "/etc/pacman.d/hooks" [1] is (at least
> >> one
> >>> example) place that will override "/usr/share/libalpm/hooks".
> >>>
> >>> The directories/priorities should be enumerated in the docs. Even if
> this
> >>> is enumerated in another doc page somewhere, since the behavior really
> >>> _matters_ in alpm-hooks it should probably be at least re-enumerated
> here
> >>> if not become the source-of-record for this information.
> >>>
> >>> --Sean
> >>>
> >>> [0] https://www.archlinux.org/pacman/alpm-hooks.5.html
> >>> [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_Hooks
> >>
> >> man pacman.conf
> 1) Mailing list etiquette is to reply via bottom-posting, this gets
> exponentially more confusing when some posters top-post while the rest
> bottom post.
> 2) Hook dirs depend on your configuration file, of course, and more
> importantly, they depend on what tool you use to perform upgrades (as
> this is responsible for parsing the configuration file, theoretically
> doing whatever it wants to the results, and then dealing with libalpm
> via that). That being said, patches welcome!
> --
> Eli Schwartz
> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
1) Sorry, as soon as I hit "Send" I had regrets :/

Ok, so I just want to make sure that I'm clear where we are talking (I may
be making an assumption/reading into your response too deeply, so want to
confirm). libalpm, I know, can/is used by more than pacman. So, yes, maybe
alpm-hooks can't/shouldn't reference pacman.conf in the manpage, certainly

Does that mean that:
"Hooks may be overriden by placing a file with the same name in a higher
priority hook directory. Hooks may be disabled by overriding them with a
symlink to /dev/null"

becomes something like (maybe there is a better suggestion here):
"Hooks may be overriden by placing a file with the same name in a higher
priority hook directory as passed to libalpm. Hooks may be disabled by
overriding them with a symlink to /dev/null"

That would be the only thing I would be looking to do/change, are we saying
the same thing and/or am I missing something? I'm not trying to get petty
on the docs/wording, but it's easy to forget (or it was for me) that I'm
talking about the the alpm world and not the pacman world so even a minor
wording change, if there was one, would've jogged my memory ("What passes
hooks to libalpm...? oh yeah...pacman...") and I would've never had to mail
the mailinglist...

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list