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 ?

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?