Re: [Nut-upsuser] Liebert PSA On Battery report

2014-10-17 Thread Tim Dawson
Likely because 2.6.3 is not a current release. 2.7.2 (or 3?) is rhe current version, and it makes little sense to backport changes. Nut is a trivial compile . . . 'Use the source, Luke . . .' - Tim On October 17, 2014 6:05:35 PM CDT, Derek Harding de...@lagham.org.uk wrote: Hi, Back in 2011,

Re: [Nut-upsuser] Liebert PSA On Battery report

2014-10-17 Thread Charles Lepple
On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Tim Dawson tadaw...@tpcsvc.com wrote: Likely because 2.6.3 is not a current release. 2.7.2 (or 3?) is rhe current version, and it makes little sense to backport changes. Tim, It's possible that these changes didn't make it in. I admit that would be my knee-jerk

Re: [Nut-upsuser] Liebert PSA On Battery report

2014-10-17 Thread Tim Dawson
I guess it's kind of a natural response on my part, working professionally in software. T-Shooting step one: Get current and see if the problem persists. If it does,then step rwo: debug. 2+ years is forever in software, noting that 2.6.3 was mid 2012 . . . - Tim On October 17, 2014 9:38:15 PM

Re: [Nut-upsuser] Liebert PSA On Battery report

2014-10-17 Thread Derek Harding
I downloaded latest source and it compiles ok but the original usbhid-ups.c is unchanged. Pier changed other files, too, and I don't know the changes needed. Simply substituting the modified (as per 2011) usbhid-ups gives a failed connection to the ups. So I have tried a little. I'll uninstall

Re: [Nut-upsuser] Liebert PSA On Battery report

2014-10-17 Thread Derek Harding
This is the last post in the old thread: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2011-February/006651.html I'm marginally reluctant to install a non-standard release on a customer server because I may not be the next person to have to work on it, however, I do agree the most