Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu Jul 02 13:51:32 -0400 2009: > > http://wiki.opencsw.org/package-hooks
> I dont see where it explicitly calls how how a package tool can > differentiate between "batch" and "per-package" hooks. Well, if you read the description of the two groups of hooks, you should see that it notes: <snip> Batch Hooks: These hooks are run before or after a batch package operation. In this sense, batch is taken to mean all package actions, regardless of the number of packages affected. </snip> <snip> Per-package Hooks: These hooks are run before and after individual calls to pkgadd or pkgrm. </snip> I've added some examples of the call sequences at the bottom of the document in a 'Hook Invocation' section to solidify these descriptions. > also, the communication between package tools and hooks, seems to be rather > vague. > An rfc normally deals with fairly concrete directives. and even when it is > vague, it is explicitly vague. that is to say, "must" vs "may" :-) For better or worse. > What I mean is, I think it would be beneficial to have the "communication" > section rewritten along the lines of, > [in situation X, the package tool should pass in argument Y] Done. See changes. > Right now, it seems like package tools "may" pass in arguments to hooks, > basically on a whim. there is no rhyme or reason to it that i can see. Well, I thought it was clear, but I wrote it, so I knew what I meant! :) -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 GPG Key Id: 8E89F6D2; Key Server: pgp.mit.edu Contact me to arrange for a CAcert assurance meeting.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
