On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 9:28 PM, Eli Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 < > [email protected]> > > 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 understandable. 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...
