Code review comment for lp://staging/~mabac/linaro-image-tools/scripts-hooks
Revision history for this message
| Ricardo Salveti (rsalveti) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
363558c
demo site
(Get the code!)
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Mattias Backman
<email address hidden> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Do we need the extra command line options? I'm thinking about a hook dir where
>
> It's all down to how you'd like this to behave, we can do that instead. I think the discussions on irc kept mentioning command line options which is why I did that. Any other opinions about cli options vs a hook dir?
While I like the pbuilder/livebuild way of hooking the script, I think
having them as a parameter (for pre/post) is more than enough, besides
easier to implement. If the user really want to customize the image
this much, I'd prefer him to go and create his own image by running
live-build by hand.
>> > 2. Would be useful if we could also copy both scripts at the rootfs
>> > 3. Would also be useful if we could stamp that the image was customized by a
>> script
>>
>> for both, I'll leave these outside of l-m-c. It's up to the developer and
>> could be done through the hooks.
>
> I think it can be settled by sorting out if this always will be needed or if there may be cases where the hook author would want no trace of the hooks on the target system. If we feel that we need this for helping people with messed up images we need to do it in l-m-c. If it's up to the developer, I'm happy to leave this bit out.
Do we have the logs from the l-m-c available at the image already?
Guess that this would be enough already.