On Nov 3, 2013, at 11:33 PM, David N Melik wrote: > I would still like to know if running UPSD on a port is essential, > rather than not having a port... crond and atd, for example, do not > need ports, so why would UPSD?
We are talking about the *Network* UPS Tools here... No, upsd does not strictly *need* a network port. You could rewrite things to talk directly to the Unix-domain socket that the drivers typically use to talk to upsd. When I cited the FAQ before, I incorrectly stated that you wouldn't be able to connect multiple clients to such a server. I must have been confusing named pipes and Unix-domain sockets. An alternative Unix-domain socket upsd would need a maintainer, and I think most people wouldn't mind spending the extra time to lock down the existing TCP-based implementation rather than writing and maintaining a parallel daemon. But as I mentioned earlier, there was work done on a HAL alternative to upsd. That used D-BUS instead of a TCP socket, and integrated better with the desktop. However, HAL has been deprecated, and the developer who did the NUT+HAL integration hasn't had time to work on a follow-on system that would interface to UPower. Would you be interested in helping out with this? -- Charles Lepple clepple@gmail _______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
