On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:01:03PM -0500, Peter Jones wrote: > 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)
Yes, so we'd first source /usr/lib/pm-utils/config, then /etc/pm/config. So the distro can put good defaults into /usr/lib/pm-utils/config which the user/admin can overwrite in /etc/pm/config. Sounds good. I'd still keep the /usr/lib/pm-utils/config well commented, so the admin can use it as a template for his own verion in /etc/pm/config. > I'd say the distros should be using /usr/lib/pm-utils/*/ instead, > though. If you think about it, they're basically acting as a proxy for > us at fd.o. Which is to say, in some respect we're sharing one task > with them, whereas a 3rd party package vendor (such as freshrpms, for > example) is really doing things on behalf of the admin, rather than as a > vendor. ACK. > > Can't we just get rid of the symlink and install two files rather than > > one with special casing that changes the execution depending on the > > symlink name? > > I'd really rather maintain one 114 line script that has a special case > that winds up being 5 lines for each (of two) choices than two 100 line > scripts that have 95 lines the same. 100% ACK. Otherwise we have to take care to fix bugs in two scripts instead of one ;-) -- Stefan Seyfried "Any ideas, John?" "Well, surrounding them's out." _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
