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)