Can we make readahead more robust to package updates?

[Tony Nelson]

At 10:41 AM +0100 2/14/07, Karel Zak wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:15:57PM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> On 11/12/06, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Okay its come to my attention that the readahead configs have a
>> >difficult time being kept in sync as package updates roll out. For fc6
>> >right now for example readahead is out of sync with firefox libraries.
>> >
>> >Can we update readahead's implementation so we can get per package
>> >control of the default configs?  Is a readahead.d/ structure
>> >appropriate here?
>>
>> Sorry... i didnt look hard enough... the readahead.d structure was
>> added for fc6.... the problem is package maintainers aren't using it
>> yet.  I guess what I need to do is parse the existing config file...
>> identify individual packages that could drop files in readahead.d/
>> and poke the appropriate maintainers in the eye about dropping a file
>> in there as part of package payloading.
>>
>> Anyone want to help me construct the list of packages that could make
>> sure of readahead.d/ on a per package basis based on the default
>> readahead configs we have right now?
>
> Update: I've wrote a small and simple readahead-auditd that is able
> to collect all filenames from boot process. It means everyone will be
> able to generate unique list for his Fedora. And also I can maintain
> default lists more effective now. I'm going to release an
> experimental readahead package with this solution to FC7 next week.

Would this work on FC6 as well?  If the package can build cleanly on FC6
I'd try it out.

Does the daemon keep running after booting finishes?  Will it have anything
more to do then?
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:'                       <mailto:tonynelson at georgeanelson.com>
      '                              <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>