On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:49:04 +0200 "S.Çağlar Onur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 10 Mar 2007 Cts tarihinde, Tim Dijkstra şunları yazmıştı: > > > I agree with this. > > > IIRC "service" is also mandated by LSB. > > > > It is not. > > Ok, instead of talking about if "service" is a LSB thing or not i think we > should make a _decision_ about what _we_ should do. So; > > * Get rid of /etc/init.d/ existence check which i proposed, > * Get rid of "service" command usage and relay only /etc/init.d/ scripts > which > seems Tim Dijkstra wants, > * Introduce distro specific hooks/functions etc. > * Ignore all threads/patches/comments so distros/people can fork/alternate > pm-utils which works just for them happily > > Comments? OK, sorry for being a bit blunt. But I hope stefan knows I'm not always like that;) It appears that is inevitable that we introduce distro specific functions here, because you do not appear to have /etc/init.d and we don't have service. It is probably easiest to just call `service XXX' that way we can easily add a wrapper function. If we would keep /etc/init.d/XXX it is harder to wrap and you would have to patch pm-utils in various places. grts Tim _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
