On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 05:58:49PM +0200, Luca Niccoli
wrote:
> 2009/4/12 Raphael Hertzog :
>
> > Expect grumpy people every time that you add something new that they have
> > to learn. I also had troubles with hal and X when I tried the X servers in
> > experimental. But I have not read any ser
2009/4/12 Raphael Hertzog :
> Expect grumpy people every time that you add something new that they have
> to learn. I also had troubles with hal and X when I tried the X servers in
> experimental. But I have not read any serious criticism based on technical
> facts in the bug report you showed.
I
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 15:01 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 01:11:26PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > 515214 isn't most users. most users just want things to work.
>
> But then 515214 appears to be at least a significant amount of users. Anyway,
no, it doesn't.
> having
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 01:11:26PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 515214 isn't most users. most users just want things to work.
But then 515214 appears to be at least a significant amount of users. Anyway,
having things "just work" and being able to run a system without hal do not
contradict each
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Michael Meskes wrote:
> But then 515214 appears to be at least a significant amount of users. Anyway,
> having things "just work" and being able to run a system without hal do not
> contradict each other.
Expect grumpy people every time that you add something new that they hav
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:55:39PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> As (co-)maintainer of pm-utils and hal, I'd prefer if we could work towards
> standardizing on one power management stack in Debian (and not install 3 by
> default [1]), i.e. I'd support in phasing out acpi-support and would gladly
>
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 14:04 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:55:39PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > As (co-)maintainer of pm-utils and hal, I'd prefer if we could work towards
> > standardizing on one power management stack in Debian (and not install 3 by
> > default [1]),
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:06:15PM +0200, Bart Samwel wrote:
>> 1. The upstream for this package is Ubuntu. Ubuntu has never been very
>> cooperative at accepting changes, until recently: our contact Steve
>> Langasek has indicated that he is interested in merging most or al
Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:06:15PM +0200, Bart Samwel wrote:
I'm putting the acpi-support package up for adoption. The RFA bug is here:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522683
Given that I already maintain acpid in pkg-acpi, I'm very interested. And yes,
Hi Steve,
On Mon, April 6, 2009 05:44, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:06:15PM +0200, Bart Samwel wrote:
>> 1. The upstream for this package is Ubuntu. Ubuntu has never been very
>> cooperative at accepting changes, until recently: our contact Steve
>> Langasek has indicated tha
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:06:15PM +0200, Bart Samwel wrote:
> I'm putting the acpi-support package up for adoption. The RFA bug is here:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522683
Given that I already maintain acpid in pkg-acpi, I'm very interested. And yes,
the acpi team will w
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:06:15PM +0200, Bart Samwel wrote:
> 1. The upstream for this package is Ubuntu. Ubuntu has never been very
> cooperative at accepting changes, until recently: our contact Steve
> Langasek has indicated that he is interested in merging most or all of
> our changes, provide
Package: wnpp
I want to stop maintaining the acpi-support package and am looking for
an adopter. This package is relatively high-profile, since it is
installed by default on all laptops, and part of it is installed on all
ACPI machines. There are some specific challenges with the package that
mak
13 matches
Mail list logo
