Is the intention that the execution order of hooks be identical once this change lands? That currently isn't the case and may lead to changes in the images. For example, the following generates:
./make-hooks --hooks-dir ../hooks vmdk vagrant ... [HOOK] 005-ssh_authentication.chroot => chroot/ssh_authentication.chroot ... [HOOK] 016-vagrant.binary => base/vagrant.binary
But prior to this change, these two hooks were in the opposite order:
042-vagrant.binary 052-ssh_authentication.chroot
Am I missing something (like are all the chroot hooks executed before the binary hooks)?
I also have a concern with defining the RESOURCE map in the make-hooks script (see inline comment).
Otherwise, I think this is a good approach to the problem. Thanks for working on it.
« Back to merge proposal
Is the intention that the execution order of hooks be identical once this change lands? That currently isn't the case and may lead to changes in the images. For example, the following generates:
./make-hooks --hooks-dir ../hooks vmdk vagrant authentication. chroot => chroot/ ssh_authenticat ion.chroot
...
[HOOK] 005-ssh_
...
[HOOK] 016-vagrant.binary => base/vagrant.binary
But prior to this change, these two hooks were in the opposite order:
042-vagrant.binary authentication. chroot
052-ssh_
Am I missing something (like are all the chroot hooks executed before the binary hooks)?
I also have a concern with defining the RESOURCE map in the make-hooks script (see inline comment).
Otherwise, I think this is a good approach to the problem. Thanks for working on it.