[Pm-utils] [patch commit] Hook and install location independence, the less ugly version
victor.lowther at gmail.com
Mon Feb 4 10:11:19 PST 2008
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 08:48 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Now to the review. I took a quick glance, but probably need to look again.
> 0001: Is there reason to export PM_FUNCTIONS in pm-action? I believe
> everything is done in process.
Well, if we don't export PM_FUNCTIONS in pm-action and pm-powersave, we
would have to export it in functions, and that seemed a bit weirdly
recursive to me.
Everything is done in process? The hooks, at least, are separate
> 0006: This could come later, but I think it would be nicer to collect
> all the relocatable directories into variables at the top of the
> script instead of substituting @PM_*@ throughout the script. Like:
> for cfg in "$PM_UTILS_SYSCONFDIR"/config.d/*[!~] ; do
> That would pave the way where you could override things at runtime for
> testing or whatnot. Maybe it's not worth the trouble.
It sounds like a good idea -- I did not think of collecting all the
relocatable stuff at the top of functions, I just did a global search
and replace in vim.
The version I end up pushing upstream will have this change.
> 0007: Any reason to change this from install-exec-hook to
> install-data-hook? They're links to scripts, so they should be
> considered part of the executables, I think.
Because (oddly enough), automake thinks of scripts as data that happens
to be executable, not as executable files. I suppose since you normally
don't compile scripts...
I ran into this issue with my first attempt at making the scripts
relocatable -- the make process would attempt to rewrite the scripts
before I had moved them into place, even though having the rewrite rule
in install-exec-hook should have guaranteed that the scripts were in
their final location.
> Looks good besides those nits, though.
Ubuntu Certified Professional
More information about the Pm-utils