Holger Macht wrote:
The stuff in HAL will still write a preamble (with e.g. /sbin/lsmod output) and possibly a postamble too. I think
that belongs in HAL, not pm-utils, because HAL provides the asynchronous error handling, pm-utils does not.
But if it would be done in pm-utils, pm-utils would also useable without
HAL, so it would be some kind of separate. HAL would only be the interface
between the desktop and pm-utils.
Can't we agree on a preamble and postamble pm-utils writes to the log?
I'm fine with pm-utils writing the preamble and postamble. But I want to
create the log file from HAL (e.g. solution 3. in the mail I just sent),
not rely on some magic file location that would have to be part of the
pm-utils ABI.
Be careful not to pack too much info into the preamble; only include
"dynamic" information e.g. kernel state, kernel version, lsmod output,
/proc/meminfo, /proc/sys/kernel/tainted, (maybe) what X driver is being
used and so on. This is because it will always run and thus needs to be
very fast.
The desktop policy manager can, upon handling the error on reboots go
bananas and include all the "static" stuff about the system such as
lshal output and whatnot. That too (including a decision to send it to
fd.o bugzilla, module pm-utils) would probably be good to standardize -
let's cross that bridge when we (that is, you and Richard!) get there.
David
_______________________________________________
Pm-utils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
