On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:04:47PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:29:38PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >>On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:26 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>>On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >>>>Add a Red Hat style init script, using the service name > >>>>libvirt_qemud. > >>>I'm wondering about the future where we have Rich's libvirtd to start > >>>up too. Perhaps we should call the init script just 'libvirtd' and > >>>in the future it can either start both libvirt_qemud & libvirtd or > >>>if we merge the two, just start libvirtd. That way we won't have to > >>>worry about possible renaming of the init script during an update. > >> Sounds good to me, how about just re-naming the daemon to libvirtd > >>too ? > > > >That'll cause a bit of an annoying namespace clash with Rich's existing > >code for libvirtd. I think it'll be fine to keep it as libvirt_qemud > >for now, because the user will never be directly exposed to this name, > >it'll either autospawn (unprivileged users), or be started indirectly > >with the init script. > > Isn't the plan to combine the two daemons at some point? Yes, that's why I wanted a single init script just called 'libvirtd' - so even if we do have 2 separate daemons for a short while - when we do get around to combining them the user doesn't have to use a different init script. Basically want to hide the libvirt_qemud from direct sight at an admin level in expectation that it will go away in favour of the general purpose daemon. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|