[Pm-utils] Re: Resume via quirks, not using the DBUS method, Was: Release Candidates ?

[Richard Hughes]

On 06/03/07, Peter Jones <pjones at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 21:30 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
>
> > Before getting towards 1.0, shouldn't we move over from /etc/ to
> > /usr/lib/pm-utils or something like that to be FHS compliant? Somebody
> > mentioned recently to me that having these scripts in /etc/pm/hooks seemed
> > a bit strange to him. I am not very good at that FHS stuff, but IIUC only
> > configuration stuff should live in /etc?
>
> Yes, I think I agree with you.
>
> So I'm thinking we actually want something like:
>
> /etc/pm/config             # the default config file
> /etc/pm/config.d/          # empty by default
> /etc/pm/sleep.d/           # empty by default
> /etc/pm/power.d/           # empty by default

Adding that this is where the ISV's and distros should push random stuff.

> /usr/lib/pm-utils/power.d/ # default power scripts are here
> /usr/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d/ # default s/r/h/t scripts are here, used to be "hooks"

Yes, adding that anything installed here is installed by the fd.o
pm-utils project only.

> /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/
> /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action
> /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-pmu
> /usr/lib/pm-utils/functions
> /usr/sbin/pm-suspend       # symlink to pm-action above
> /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate     # symlink to pm-action above

Can't we just get rid of the symlink and install two files rather than
one with special casing that changes the execution depending on the
symlink name?

> /usr/sbin/pm-powersave
> /usr/bin/on_ac_power # some stuff out of pm-utils calls it...
>
> And then for e.g. sleep.d, we take all the filenames in the two
> directories (/etc/pm/sleep.d and /usr/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d) and sort
> them, then we iterate.  If the file exists in /etc/pm/sleep.d, we run
> that one (_if_ it's executable).  If it doesn't exist there, we run it
> from /usr/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d instead.
>
> This lets the stuff in /etc/pm, except for /etc/pm/config itself, be
> totally user configuration, and lets a local admin override what
> anything in the defaults will do, without changing any file the distro
> distributed.
>
> Have I missed anything terribly obvious?

That sounds like a plan to me. :-)

Richard.