2008/10/6 Jim Garlick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:43:38PM +0200, Arnaud Quette wrote: > (snip) >> To conclude this first "meeting", the best would be: >> - to have a common ground for comparison (ie having 1 same device >> supported by both, and check how things works on each side), >> - possibly try to make a quick and dirty bridge between nut and >> powerman to see if it make sense (is there a client API to bind with >> Powerman?), > > There is a text-based protocol between client and server that looks very > much like a power controller (in fact the powerman daemon can control > a remote powerman daemon as though it were a power controller). > So perhaps this fits into an infrastructure you already have for > talking to devices on TCP sockets? Alternatively, it would not take too > much arm twisting to convince me to refactor the client code so that a > C based API is exposed for external use.
it shouldn't be that hard to spawn a powerman driver in nut, using libpowerman and possibly a small bunch of doc/help ;-) the only problem ATM is that a driver only expose 1 device. >> - in the meantime, check how hard it would be to merge Powerman's >> devices into NUT. >> >> I'll also check on my side your simulators, since I don't own any of >> the Powerman's supported devices... >> >> Does all this make sense for you? > > Sure, though I would need to see a very compelling benefit to powerman > users to consider a project merge. I don't see that based on my limited > understanding of NUT. However, I'm very open to the other forms of > collaboration discussed thus far. so, let's go that way for the moment, and we'll see later on if this can/should be improved. On my side, I'm about to release a preliminary branch for supporting Eaton SNMP PDUs (1 on 4 ATM). I'll send a more detailed mail soon about that. Arnaud _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list Nut-upsdev@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev