Plans for hal 0.5.x

Sjoerd Simons sjoerd at
Mon Dec 13 07:39:55 PST 2004

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:21:39AM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 11:17 +0100, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> > But it probably won't be really an addon, because we want it to work too
> > when there is no hal for whatever reason.
> > 
> Well, yeah, the ideal interface for handling addons should be something
> simple like just managing the lifecycle of said addons. So, e.g. if I
> got a hal device object with
>  info.addon.<some-unique-addon-type> = /usr/sbin/pmu-hal-polling
> then hald (some other component invoked by hald, probably) will ensure
> that there is exactly one copy running for each hal device object with
> the above line. The lifecycle is managed with fork/exec and kill; if the
> invoked program exits prematurely (e.g. not being killed by hald), then
> so be it.

Is there a reason to have it run as an addon, when it would just run
continously otherwise ? A pmu is not something one hotplugs afaik :)

The idea i was having is to just let it push it's info into hal when it sees
the service is available.

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.
hal mailing list
hal at

More information about the Hal mailing list