2008/10/30 Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:15 -0500, Robby Workman wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:44:39 -0500 >> Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On Oct 29, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Robby Workman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > I like the idea, I think. I almost prefer to have those named in a >> > > format of "$distro.functions" and "$distro.pm-functions" though. >> > > This, of course, would require testing if the directory is not empty >> > > and then sourcing all of its contents if not, or perhaps this, to >> > > add (probably needless) complexity: a --with-distro=$distro >> > > configure flag, and then configure could write that value into the >> > > stock functions files so that it knows what to source. Did that >> > > make any sense? :-) >> > >> > Well, Part of the idea is that upstream pm-utils would not do >> > anything in the distro.d directory - it would be there for the >> > distros to use or ignore as they choose. I don't want to be in the >> > business of maintaining every distro-specific method for doing >> > something out there >> > - I just want to provide sane defaults and make it easy for distro >> > maintainers to customize things. Giving y'all a designated place and >> > a method to do so is part of that goal.
FWIW, I think distro specific changes can be easily managed with patches. Imo the only relevant function in functions.in which would need distro customization is (stop,restart)service. Everything else is generic. Adding a whole infrastructure (which can be misused) to support distro overrides seems like overkill to me. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
