On 08/24/20 at 10:34pm, Daan De Meyer wrote: > > What about adding Include support to hooks? Then hooks that need this > > type of functionality could explicitly include trigger files from > > a particular directory, insulating the process from simple hook > > renaming and hopefully making it more obvious when changes to the hook > > will require changes to any package that modifies it. > > Just to make sure I understand correctly, does Include support imply > that hooks opt in to reading triggers from a specific directory and > that we can rename the hook itself without changing the drop-in > directory for that hook to avoid breakage? If so, that sounds totally > reasonable and even preferable since it also avoids packages adding > triggers to hooks that can't deal with extra targets when NeedsTargets > is used. I can adapt the patch to use this approach. > > Do we pass a full path to Include or just a directory name? The > advantage of just a directory name is that it could be created in any > of the hook directories (hook installed in /usr/share/libalpm/hooks > and the added triggers in /etc/pacman.d/hooks/<directory> for > example). It doesn't necessarily have to be just a directory name, we > could interpret it as a relative path and you could still put it in > each of the hook directories but that might just be adding too much > complexity.
Include should take a glob, just like pacman.conf.
