Hi Christian, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> severity 491396 serious >> thanks >> >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: >>> Therefore, I think this deserves to be fixed for lenny, unless we want >>> to release with a non-working ACPI support. >>> >>> I should even have tagged the bug as release critical, imho. Leaving >>> that up to the maintainer. >> Agreed. Bart, can you handle that? > > > Well, I'm indeed really sorry for putting such pressure but this is > the only way to handle these things after the very very annoying > decision taken by the Kernel Team when disabling /proc/acpi so close > to the release. > > I'm still pondering raising an RC issue on linux-2.6 for /proc/acpi to > be back. I know that bugs have been reassigned to various packages > when they were reported but I think I would then go up to CTTE as an > attempt to revert to /proc/acpi support to be reintroduced in the > kernel. > > I only regret not doing that much earlier when I noticed that 2/3 of > my power management utilities had been broken without prior notice.
While working on a fix for this problem I noticed that acpi-support uses on_ac_power to find power state changes, and that has an unopened bug in this exact same area as well: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=473629 Should we be tagging this one as serious as well? Since on_ac_power will simply not work on ACPI systems with the kernels that will ship with lenny, powermgmt-base will be badly broken. The acpi-support code is very "interesting" in other ways as well: it uses the broken on_ac_power to determine power state *changes* (to prevent calling scripts when nothing has changed), but then proceeds to use its own broken logic to determine the actual power state (to determine which scripts to call)... I'll have a fix ready tonight. Cheers, Bart -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
