On 03/01/17 04:27, Andrew Gregory wrote: > On 01/02/17 at 07:20pm, [email protected] wrote: >> On 2017-Jan-02, Andrew Gregory wrote with possible deletions: >>> On 01/02/17 at 05:10pm, Stefan Klinger wrote: >>>> I've noticed that exactly one `Exec` directive is allowed in >>>> alpm-hooks(5). Instead, multiple occurrences are silently >>>> ignored. >>>> I think raising an error would be best >>> >>> Multiple "assignments" are not going away. Triggers can have multiple >>> Targets and forcing people to cram them all on one line is a terrible >>> idea. This is also how multi-value options in pacman's configuration >>> are parsed. >> >> Ok, if that actually is usual behavior in ini-style files, so be it. >> Could we print a warning if information is lost by reassigning Exec? >> I have updated my proposal [1] accordingly. >> >>>> ____________________ >>>> [1] https://github.com/s5k6/pacman/tree/fix-hook-exec > > As I said before, I have no real opinion one way or the other about > issuing a warning/error on overwriting single-value options, so I'll > leave that to Allan. If you want your patch to actually be reviewed, > though, you need to submit it to this list with `git send-email`.
I think an error message is too strict and a debug message is not enough. So I will accept a warning message being printed. A
