On Wed 28. Jun - 09:37:50, Holger Macht wrote: > (readded lost CC's) > > On Thu 22. Jun - 12:55:03, Sebastian Kügler wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thursday 22 June 2006 11:01, Holger Macht wrote: > > [... long emails that all make a lot of sense] > > > So what are the next steps... > > > > > > I think we should give others some time to also comment on all that. And > > > or course, it would be important to know what the kpowersave maintainer > > > (Danny? ;-) thinks of all this. Then we should meet at kde-hardware-devel > > > to discuss a solid - powerlibs integration. I already started with the > > > powersave daemon redesign in regard to CPUFreq and from my point of view, > > > I will be available to do more the from now on. > > > > First, I'll briefly introduce myself. I'm sebas, working on the guidance > > system administration tools in Kubuntu. > > > > As you know, we're pondering what would be the best solution for the > > upcoming > > Edgy Eft release of Kubuntu. We have a pretty tight release schedule, with > > a > > feature freeze in 11 weeks from now. We are planning to implement a small > > powermanagement solution for this next release. > > > > I am very pleased with your plans though, even if it might not look like > > that > > in the first place. The small solution we're writing will be replaced with > > your proposal, but at the moment we're a bit hesitant because it seems to > > be > > the beginning of a bigger overhaul. We'll keep track of your work though, > > and > > we'll try to help out and share work whereever possible. The reason why > > we're > > going for an own solution is that we think we can have something that does > > the work pretty soon. However, we're already thinking of getting the code > > integrated in HAL and other pieces where applicable. We're definitely not > > out > > to duplicate efforts, we're looking for a temporary solution that does it > > well enough for the moment. > > I really don't like seeing you creating another temporary solution. My > plans might sound big and complicated, but they can be seperated into > verious different pieces. So taking the kpowersave approach, because it > should be independent, it is completely seperated from the rest of the > plans. From kpowersave's point of view, it's just to patch out the > powersave dependencies and addin a few other things. So why not putting > your efforts into kpowersave _now_, so that it provides the basic > functionality, which will still be definitely more than your new > application may provide. I think it's really doable within the next weeks.
Sebastian, so you stick to creating a new application? I think we should start the kpowersave redesign now, creating a new mailinglist for the new kpowersave and start working together. Danny, what's your opinion about this? Regards, Holger _______________________________________________ powersave-devel mailing list powersave-devel@forge.novell.com http://forge.novell.com/mailman/listinfo/powersave-devel