[Pm-utils] pm-utils logfile checks

Victor Lowther victor.lowther at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 16:09:57 PDT 2008

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 17:16 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2008/4/28 Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists at gmail.com>:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Stefan Seyfried <seife at suse.de> wrote:
> >  > Till Maas wrote:
> >  >
> >  >  > Btw. I updated the HOWTO.hooks in git to mention "${PM_FUNCTIONS}" instead of
> >  >  > the hardcoded path, because on 64 bit system pm-utils is installed
> >  >  > in /usr/lib64 instead of /usr/lib.
> >  >
> >  >  Which you should fix anyway - if you need it at all, install pm-reset-swap and
> >  >  pm-pmu in /usr/bin, and the rest makes for a fine noarch package.
> If at all, then sbindir please.
> But I don't think moving pm-pmu and pm-reset-swap to bin or sbin would
> be a good idea.
> They are implementation details, not tools that should be directly
> executed by the user.
> pm-pmu e.g. is going away in the near/mid term, as pmu machines now
> support echo "mem" > /sys/power/state.


> >
> >  Or libexecdir if they should stay out of $PATH. I think it would be
> libexecdir whould make more sense indeed.

I would rather leave them where they are and let them die natural

The natural death path for pm-pmu is clear (2.6.25 no longer needs pmu
hacks), the natural death path for pm-reset-swap is less so.  Perhaps I
am missing something, but the current code does not call it at all --
what is it used for?

> >  nice to make the package as noarch as possible, since it's almost
> >  entirely scripts. Really, mostly everything would be most appropriate
> >  in ${datadir}/pm-utils.
> Ack, moving the scripts to $datadir would be technically correct. We
> should be carful about not breaking existing scripts (again) though.

Technically correct, but annoying because scripts are executable data.
I would prefer to leave them where they are for now

> Cheers,
> Michael
Victor Lowther
Ubuntu Certified Professional

More information about the Pm-utils mailing list