The more I sleep on this, the less convinced I become that this is a good idea.
Quite the contrary actually.
That instinct is rarely wrong, so I'm canceling this PR. If at some point an
actual use-case presents itself, we can always re-evaluate.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on Gi
Closed #2669.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2669#event-10587647928
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
And now with a testcase.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2669#issuecomment-1748534572
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
41239f304316b8ff6e63e0a823bf71c83420ffc5 Add new plugin slots for pre/post
chroot events
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2669/files/9287ab4e8f1cdfc05045da057caf66f32b87e05c..41239f304316b8ff6e63e0a823bf71c83420ffc5
You are re
> Looks good and pretty straight forward. May be should get a test case.
Yep. I actually have a test-case written in the form of "plugin development"
test, but it needs some cmake infra bits first. But, this PR isn't in any
particular hurry.
> It might also be a good idea to point out in the do
Looks good and pretty straight forward. May be should get a test case.
It might also be a good idea to point out that these are called even when
running without --root. Technically we omit the chroot call in this case but
the hoooks are ofc executed no matter what (as they should be)
--
Reply
These pre/post hooks get called before and after every chroot() call rpm makes.
The initial inspiration came from the now removed experimental non-privileged
chroot support with unshare() but this is probably an interesting boundary for
various other purposes too.
You can view, comment on, or me
