2007/3/6, Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 16:31 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 06/03/07, Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 21:30 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> >
> > > Before getting towards 1.0, shouldn't we move over from /etc/ to
> > > /usr/lib/pm-utils or something like that to be FHS compliant? Somebody
> > > mentioned recently to me that having these scripts in /etc/pm/hooks seemed
> > > a bit strange to him. I am not very good at that FHS stuff, but IIUC only
> > > configuration stuff should live in /etc?
> >
> > Yes, I think I agree with you.
> >
> > So I'm thinking we actually want something like:
> >
> > /etc/pm/config # the default config file
> > /etc/pm/config.d/ # empty by default
> > /etc/pm/sleep.d/ # empty by default
> > /etc/pm/power.d/ # empty by default
>
> Adding that this is where the ISV's and distros should push random stuff.
I find myself wondering if /etc/pm/config shouldn't really
be /usr/lib/pm-utils/config , actually. That would make /etc/pm
entirely the domain of the admin (and any ISV software he adds)
Imo putting config files in /usr/lib/ is a bad idea. No one expects
them in /usr/lib, Debian policies forbid it and I also think the FHS
does not promote this.
> > /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/
> > /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action
> > /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-pmu
I'd use ${libexec} for that. On some platforms this resolves to
/usr/libexec/$file, on other (like) debian to /usr/lib/pm-utils.
It is mean for executables/scripts which should not be run directly
(exactly what we do).
> > /usr/lib/pm-utils/functions
> > /usr/sbin/pm-suspend # symlink to pm-action above
> > /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate # symlink to pm-action above
>
Cheers,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Pm-utils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
