[Pm-utils] Move pm/functions and hooks to /usr/lib or /usr/share

[Richard Hughes]

On 05/03/07, Holger Macht <hmacht at suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue 06. Mar - 00:21:56, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > 2007/3/5, Holger Macht <hmacht at suse.de>:
> > >On Mon 05. Mar - 22:38:57, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> This has come up before already, but without conclusion I think, so
> > >> here goes...
> > >>
> > >> I think (and the FHS with me) that /etc is the wrong place for
> > >> pm/functions and pm/hooks, etc. They are not supposed to be edited by the
> > >> sysadmin.
> > >>
> > >> A better place would be /usr/lib IMHO, the FHS:
> > >>
> > >>    /usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that
> > >>    are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts.
> > >>
> > >> Some people would say /usr/share:
> > >>
> > >>   The /usr/share hierarchy is for all read-only architecture independent
> > >>   data files
> > >>
> > >> Apart from this, maybe we do want to allow the admin to install additional,
> > >> custom hooks in /etc/pm/hooks. Should these be executed before, after or
> > >> sorted in between the hooks form the packages, what do you think?
> > >
> > >Hm, the admin configures pm-utils below /etc/pm and puts additional hooks
> > >into /usr/lib/pm/...? What would be wrong with that?
> > >
> >
> > I agree with Tim that /etc/pm/functions should be put into /usr/lib/pm.
>
> Me too.
>
> > The problem about the hooks is, that they are activated/deactivated
> > via the x-bit. It would be a bit odd to have to change the x bit of a
> > file in /usr/lib/pm.
> >
> > Maybe using symlinks would be a better idea anyway, similar to /etc/init.d
>
> I think this sounds reasonable. Something like a symlink from
> /etc/pm/hooks to /usr/lib/pm/hooks or the like?

If we are changing the hooks location, can we make it sleep.d and not hooks?

Richard.