[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Semantic change for dpkg triggers?


On Thu, 02 Jun 2011, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If a new behaviour is needed, it should have a new name.  Otherwise
> you break existing packages.

I know this. This is precisely why I'm asking the question of which
packages require this behaviour. If none or very few require it, I might
consider doing the change with the current name and provide new names
for the old behaviour.

Just for reference, if you review my patch at

> So I would suggest:
>  * New trigger directive "trigger-noawait", works like 
>    dpkg-trigger --no-await 

...you will notice this is called "activate-noawait"

> But we do also need a way to do this for file triggers:
>  * New trigger directive "interest-filenoawait" which has the
>    following semantics:
>       - when triggered explicitly by name by a triggering package,
>         the triggering package awaits the trigger unless the
>         triggering package specifies --no-await
>       - when triggered implicitly by installation of a file, the
>         triggering package does not await the trigger

this is called "interest-noawait" except that I have made no difference
when the file trigger is explicitly called by dpkg-trigger. I don't see a
good reason for this.

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

Reply to: