pjones at redhat.com
Tue Jun 13 16:13:39 PDT 2006
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:08 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > Currently the action is done based on the link name, which is inherently
> > > fragile in my opinion.
> > How so?
> Just change the link name.
I just don't buy this argument. If I rename /sbin/init to /sbin/lose ,
my system won't boot. How is this any different?
> > 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
> distro's scripts.
That change won't help make that true -- they'll still need to handle
command line options, etc. So they'll need a wrapper script either way.
> Either way it's not something I'm going to get passionate about, it was
> just an idea.
More information about the Pm-utils