On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 10:28:32 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 11:55:29AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 07:25:34 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > Removing it sounds like overkill to me. After all, it _does_ > > > provide value (when it works). Maybe we should do the above, > > > and spend some time getting it to work w/ Ubuntu given its > > > distribution. I should be able to do that. > > > > Where does it work? All distributions I know of, ship their own > > Good question ... > > > initialization script. There are so many dependencies (as you just > > found out) and conventions (e.g. service naming, as you just found out > > as well) involved, we can't make everyone happy. > > > > The initialization script is only useful to people installing > > lm-sensors from the sources on distributions which do not have > > it already installed via a package. There aren't many doing that these > > days, I think. And these can probably just add a couple modprobe lines > > in a custom init script, as sensors-detect suggests. lm_sensors isn't > > really a service, there's no daemon running (unless you throw sensord > > into the game) so stopping it is totally optional. > > Maybe the best approach is to not (try to) install it at all, but just provide > it as hint. Isn't it exactly what we're doing today? > Or maybe check if /etc/init.d/lm-sensors exists, and if it does > don't install anything at all. We could do that, but that's an invitation for distribution to use lm-sensors instead of lm_sensors as the service name. I'd rather push all distributions to stick to lm_sensors. > The shared library locations are yet another problem. Not sure how to address > that either. I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
