hughsient at gmail.com
Tue Jun 13 15:08:01 PDT 2006
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 17:54 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 00:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > Okay, currently we have pm-action that does both suspend and hibernate
> > based on the link name.
> > This breaks package based setups
> Huh? How do you figure?
Well, it broke my rpm , but that's maybe a broken spec file (probably),
so I'll look again, apologies.
> "make install" should be making the symlinks appropriately, why would
> packages need to change anything at all?
I didn't know the symlinks created by make install would be registered
by rpm in this way.
> > Currently the action is done based on the link name, which is inherently
> > fragile in my opinion.
> How so?
Just change the link name.
> Why? What advantage does it bring at all?
> > which seems less fragile as it doesn't depend on the link name (as other
> > distro's may want a different name linking to these scripts for
> > compatibility) and is simpler and shorter.
> Do you have an example of anybody who actually wants to do this?
We can say to any distro, just symlink your existing suspend script
(which each distro has done slightly differently) to our file, and
things will just work, and preserve compatibility with the other
I agree we could say to just symlink to our symlink, but that seems odd
to me (and would that break pm-action?)
Either way it's not something I'm going to get passionate about, it was
just an idea.
More information about the Pm-utils