Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Bernhard R. Link" Package name: acpi-support-minimal License : GPL2+ Description: minimal scripts for handling base ACPI events This package contains minimal scripts to react to various base ACPI events such as the power button. It does not require any other daemons but acpid. For a less minimal version, install the "acpi-support-base" or "acpi-support" packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120626085241.ga4...@client.brlink.eu
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
Hi! On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:52:48 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: "Bernhard R. Link" > > Package name: acpi-support-minimal > License : GPL2+ > Description: minimal scripts for handling base ACPI events > This package contains minimal scripts to react to various base > ACPI events such as the power button. It does not require any > other daemons but acpid. For a less minimal version, install > the "acpi-support-base" or "acpi-support" packages. I'm guessing this is due to the introduction of the consolekit hard dependency. I was meaning to reply to 665987 with more info, but that slipped my mind, and I see now that you filed 678524 too. I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120626100449.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
> I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very > happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built > acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed. I'm not sure I like the attitude here. "If that gets closed again" sounds like I was closing the bug without a reason, which I didn't. I'm absolutely willing to listen to ideas of solving this, which imo would be a much better solution than creating an additional package that will only partly work. But please don't forget that upstream started using consolekit for a reason. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at googlemail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120626124810.ga24...@feivel.credativ.lan
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 14:48:10 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very > > happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built > > acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed. > > I'm not sure I like the attitude here. "If that gets closed again" > sounds like I was closing the bug without a reason, which I didn't. Sure! It was not my intention to make it sound like you closed it w/o reason; given the comment on the previous paragraph stating that I didn't reply to the bug report, I thought that would be clear. I guess not. :) > I'm absolutely willing to listen to ideas of solving this, which imo > would be a much better solution than creating an additional package > that will only partly work. But please don't forget that upstream > started using consolekit for a reason. I agree that coming up with a working solution that works for everyone would be perfect. The comment about the bug being closed again was only referring to the possibility that you, as the maintainer, could not be convinced, which would be completely respectable, and in such case because we'd still disagree there's other options for us; removing the packages, switching to something else, or keep forking them locally to remove the dependency, but if Bernhard is willing to maintain such fork inside or outside Debian, then all the better. OTOH taking this for example to the tech-ctte would *not* be an option, because I've never considered that to be a reasonable solution to anything. I'll follow up on the acpi-support bug report. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120626143107.ga20...@gaara.hadrons.org
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
* Michael Meskes [120626 14:48]: [ Guillem Jover [120626 12:05]:] > > I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very > > happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built > > acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed. > [...] I'm absolutely willing > to listen to ideas of solving this, which imo would be a much better solution > than creating an additional package that will only partly work. [...] I'd prefer to get this fixed in acpi-support-base, but I think you have made your point very clear that the only purpose of that package is to not do anything if some power manager is running and that to detect this perfectly you are totally willing to force anyone to install consolekit (and thus dbus) who justs wants his system shutting down cleanly when the power button is pressed. That this is not issue for you at all and that you do not see any problem in introducing this change 2012-06-21 i.e. shortly before the freeze. > "If that gets closed again" sounds like I was closing the bug without > a reason, which I didn't. That sentence was much more neutral than anything I think I could have written. After you were closing two bug reports by just dismissing the issue, a "if that gets closed again" is a totally objective way to describe expectations. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120627093253.ga3...@client.brlink.eu
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
On Jun 27, "Bernhard R. Link" wrote: > I'd prefer to get this fixed in acpi-support-base, but I think you > have made your point very clear that the only purpose of that package is > to not do anything if some power manager is running and that to detect this > perfectly you are totally willing to force anyone to install consolekit > (and thus dbus) who justs wants his system shutting down cleanly when the > power button is pressed. That this is not issue for you at all and that > you do not see any problem in introducing this change 2012-06-21 i.e. > shortly before the freeze. Agreed. The consolekit dependencies are unacceptable for headless servers where you just want the ACPI power button event to work. If fixing acpi-support-base is hard then acpi-support-minimal or acpi-support-server would be just as good. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
❦ 26 juin 2012 14:48 CEST, Michael Meskes : >> I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very >> happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built >> acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed. > > I'm not sure I like the attitude here. "If that gets closed again" sounds like > I was closing the bug without a reason, which I didn't. I'm absolutely willing > to listen to ideas of solving this, which imo would be a much better solution > than creating an additional package that will only partly work. But please > don't > forget that upstream started using consolekit for a reason. The bug is already closed but I'd like to share another solution: I am using "acpi_fakekey $KEY_COFFEE" which sends XF86ScreenSaver key to the currently displayed X server. This is not foolproof (only one X server, only if it is currently displayed) but it is far simpler than other solutions. -- Don't stop with your first draft. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) pgpIzxUVSENs4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 01:29:39AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > The bug is already closed but I'd like to share another solution: I am > using "acpi_fakekey $KEY_COFFEE" which sends XF86ScreenSaver key to the > currently displayed X server. This is not foolproof (only one X server, > only if it is currently displayed) but it is far simpler than other > solutions. Sorry, but what is "acpi_fakekey $KEY_COFFEE" supposed to accomplish? Sending XF86ScreenSaver key? I don't really how this relates to this big report. Could you please explain? Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at googlemail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120707183828.ga13...@feivel.credativ.lan
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
❦ 7 juillet 2012 20:38 CEST, Michael Meskes : >> The bug is already closed but I'd like to share another solution: I am >> using "acpi_fakekey $KEY_COFFEE" which sends XF86ScreenSaver key to the >> currently displayed X server. This is not foolproof (only one X server, >> only if it is currently displayed) but it is far simpler than other >> solutions. > > Sorry, but what is "acpi_fakekey $KEY_COFFEE" supposed to accomplish? Sending > XF86ScreenSaver key? I don't really how this relates to this big report. Could > you please explain? Yes, this would send the XF86ScreenSaver which would kick the screensaver of the currently displayed X session. This is another (imperfect) way to solve the problem of locking the user's screen without needing either an entry in /var/run/utmp or consolekit. -- Use self-identifying input. Allow defaults. Echo both on output. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) pgpm4HgHPbgWN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 09:53:00PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Yes, this would send the XF86ScreenSaver which would kick the > screensaver of the currently displayed X session. This is another > (imperfect) way to solve the problem of locking the user's screen > without needing either an entry in /var/run/utmp or consolekit. But this is not the problem. If it was just the screensaver a hard dependency wouldn't be needed. After all screensaver itself is only recommended. The problem we were facing was that acpi-support has to figure out if other power management software was running before acting itself. And for that the X session information is needed. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at googlemail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120709080603.ga11...@feivel.credativ.lan
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
❦ 9 juillet 2012 10:06 CEST, Michael Meskes : >> Yes, this would send the XF86ScreenSaver which would kick the >> screensaver of the currently displayed X session. This is another >> (imperfect) way to solve the problem of locking the user's screen >> without needing either an entry in /var/run/utmp or consolekit. > > But this is not the problem. If it was just the screensaver a hard dependency > wouldn't be needed. After all screensaver itself is only recommended. The > problem we were facing was that acpi-support has to figure out if other power > management software was running before acting itself. And for that the X > session information is needed. OK, I misunderstood the problem. I thought the difficulty was to fire the screensaver on the behalf of the active user. Isn't the information about running a power management software available through DBus? -- if (user_specified) /* Didn't work, but the user is convinced this is the * place. */ 2.4.0-test2 /usr/src/linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c pgpRqrPJ5gdA1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:33:59PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > OK, I misunderstood the problem. I thought the difficulty was to fire > the screensaver on the behalf of the active user. Isn't the information > about running a power management software available through DBus? Hmm, that's actually a good point. It seems the X session information is only needed for old KDE setups. Ah well, consolekit is optional now, so no need to worry anymore. :) Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at googlemail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120710070632.ga16...@feivel.credativ.lan
