On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 16:33 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > >> Robby's point about ambiguous service names is valid, though. Right > >> now, we only call stopservice() for ntpd, but it could be called ntp > >> or nettime or anything else since there's no convention for that. > > > > But then, the hook that calls stopservice belongs in the ntpd package and > > not > > in pm-utils anyway. And again, the packager of the to-be-stopped service > > knows > > how his init script is named. > > Not necessarily when calling init scripts. Each distro usually rolls > their own init script. You can check if suse is using an init script > from the ntp tarball or if someone has just written one and put it in > your CVS. My money is that it is a separate source file suse > maintains. As Robby points out, they use rc.messagebus for dbus while > it might be dbus on one system or dbus-daemon or messagebus somewhere > else. > > Oh, I see. You mean the distro's packager, not the upstream packager. > Yes, that would make sense. But my guess is that it needs to be > precluded by actually getting an upstream package to ship a hooks > file, which hasn't been done yet. I do agree that within a > distribution, it would make sense if the hooks file shipped with the > package it was associated with.
Along those lines, how does pkgconfig and autoconf interact? The docs that I have been able to find have been of little assistance, and I have made little progress in trying to understand by example using NetworkManager. > -- > Dan > _______________________________________________ > Pm-utils mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils -- Victor Lowther Ubuntu Certified Professional _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
