Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Bart Samwel wrote: OK, a fix has been uploaded. I guess this should hang around in unstable for a couple of days before I send it as a proposed update to the release team, right? (My experience with this process is limited, so hints are appreciated. ;-) ) Yes it needs some testing before migration, but the release team can already unblock it and it will migrate after the testing period provided that no RC bugs are filed. So it doesn't matter much when you ask the release team. Your just have to ask for an unblock so that migration is possible after the testing period. They might even want to augment the testing period in sid. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
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]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
Bart Samwel wrote: 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. OK, a fix has been uploaded. I guess this should hang around in unstable for a couple of days before I send it as a proposed update to the release team, right? (My experience with this process is limited, so hints are appreciated. ;-) ) Cheers, Bart -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
Hi Raphael, Raphael Hertzog wrote: 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? The bug is in acpid, right? I don't think I can do much else other than bug the acpid maintainer. Unless I want to go and NMU of course. :-) Cheers, Bart -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Bart Samwel wrote: Agreed. Bart, can you handle that? The bug is in acpid, right? Why? /etc/acpi/power.sh is part of acpi-support and needs to be updated to use /sys/class/power_supply/ instead of /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ which has been removed in recent kernels (2.6.26 in Debian sid, intended for lenny)... I don't see what concerns acpid here. Oh, aaargh, I've done some bad reading here. Will get this fixed. BTW, if I fix anything for this, do I need to make a special update containing *only* a fix for this bug, or can I piggyback some other nasty bug fixes onto the update? Cheers, Bart -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Bart Samwel wrote: Agreed. Bart, can you handle that? The bug is in acpid, right? Why? /etc/acpi/power.sh is part of acpi-support and needs to be updated to use /sys/class/power_supply/ instead of /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ which has been removed in recent kernels (2.6.26 in Debian sid, intended for lenny)... I don't see what concerns acpid here. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Bart Samwel wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Bart Samwel wrote: Agreed. Bart, can you handle that? The bug is in acpid, right? Why? /etc/acpi/power.sh is part of acpi-support and needs to be updated to use /sys/class/power_supply/ instead of /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ which has been removed in recent kernels (2.6.26 in Debian sid, intended for lenny)... I don't see what concerns acpid here. Oh, aaargh, I've done some bad reading here. Will get this fixed. BTW, if I fix anything for this, do I need to make a special update containing *only* a fix for this bug, or can I piggyback some other nasty bug fixes onto the update? As long as they are important and well tested, yes. The release team will have to approve the change so they will review it, so it's best when the changes are limited. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
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. Of course, when it comes at acpi-support itself, I think that supporting /sysfs would be good anyway. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
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. Yeah, that is a very annoying decision. IMO Work without /proc/acpi is something that should go in as a general release goal like the bash transition -- don't change the default in the first release, but file bugs against anything that breaks if you do. Then change the default in the next 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. There may be much more breakage waiting to be found, and there's no time to fix it all. These kind of changes need months of testing! 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. Of course, when it comes at acpi-support itself, I think that supporting /sysfs would be good anyway. Definitely, and it was already planned for a future update -- I just wasn't aware that this default had changed already. :-/ Cheers, Bart -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491396: This bug is affecting lenny and should be fixed
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: 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. Going through the CTTE is going to take a while even if all stars align;[1] the best thing would be to work with the kernel team and release team to find a workable solution for this. Don Armstrong 1: And of course, the CTTE could decide to require fixing /proc/acpi using bits. -- I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. -- Douglas Adams _The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
