-- Charlie Reiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Wednesday, 11 December 2002, 11:56 AM -0800): > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matthew Weier O'Phinney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:45 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: enabling apm on laptop > > > > > > -- Charlie Reiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > (on Wednesday, 11 December 2002, 09:06 AM -0800): > ..... > > > I don't think this is true. I'm running sid with 2.4bf and I was able to > > > "apt-get install apmd" with no problems. > > But did apm work? I was able to install apmd as well, but it didn't work > > until I'd installed an x86tsc kernel image. > > > > The 2.4bf series (bf == boot floppy) typically doesn't have > > non-essential drivers compiled in, such as apm support, and this is why > > I make the suggestions I do. My experience has been on both unstable and > > testing; if you have a different experience, please note the > > kernel-image package you're using so the OP can check his/her image > > against it. > > Well, it tells me the battery level, knows if the power is attached, and can > put the machine to sleep although I have to do it manually (apm -s). Should > it do much else? Hibernate would be nice (and almost works) but it comes up > with a corrupted screen and never recovers. Yeah, wouldn't hibernate be nice...? That was one of the best features of my old notebook -- except that after a month using Win98SE, it stopped waking up from it. That's when I first installed linux...
So, apmd is working on your machine with a 2.4bf series kernel -- which one? 'Cause that's another option for the OP. I've got 2.4.17 or 2.4.18 on my wife's old laptop, and that bf kernel didn't have apm enabled -- which is when I had to install the kernel again. The same thing happened when I installed on our new PIV-1.7GHz using a 686-bf2.4 kernel earlier this summer. > It sounds like your experience is broader than mine but I'm not sure why it > would matter that the apm support is compiled in or loaded. My is definately > being loaded but it works just the same. I didn't do anyting special besides > apt-get install apmd. I used to compile my kernels by hand, as it sped up the boot process and allowed non-standard hardware (until two years ago, many distros didn't ship with USB support enabled as it was still considered experimental, and many didn't enable APM in their kernels by default) -- but this was using different distros than debian. APM support is one of the kernel options at compile time -- you can have it compiled statically (i.e., loads all the time) or as a module (loads if requested), or not at all. Basically, my experience with the bf2.4 kernels (it wasn't until after I'd re-installed our desktop machine's kernel that I realized these were the boot floppy kernels) is that they don't have APM compiled in any way -- hence the need to install a regular kernel for your architecture. But if your machine is working with one, send the list the kernel-image package name you used as it's another option for the OP. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://weierophinney.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]