Andy Green wrote: > What it impacts is what we should test against.
Exactly my point. > It's fine there are an > uncontrolled number of rootfs out there with random things in, but it > means I don't have time to test against them and rely on the users of > the rootfs to inform about problems. And that's exactly what we have in this case -- a report from a user. > It looks like Jeremy is planning to be "internal tester" for kernel on > whatever rootfs he prefers Great. But let's not summarily dismiss the bug reports from others who choose not to use whatever rootfs that turns out to be. > If we ship stuff with apmd then > "throw out the broken apmd you seem to have in your rootfs" won't do as > a solution. Yes, and since numerous of the distros still use apmd, I'm merely pointing out that "throw out the broken apmd you seem to have in your rootfs" might not be a good answer for an awful lot of the users out there. Nobody is saying that Om needs to drop everything and make it work; I'm just stating perhaps Om shouldn't just dismiss apmd as irrelevant, which is the original implication. > Does Android need APM or is this just FUD? Android was mentioned because it is a prominent example of an external rootfs that the Om kernel team seems to take seriously. I *do* know for a fact that the FSO distro and the SHR distros both use apmd, and the rootfs' with the pre-canned Qtopia and the Qt Extended rootfs' both use apmd. I'm not sure what the Debian rootfs uses, but I believe it to be apmd as well. Mike (mwester)
