Hi, It sounds like the simplest course in terms of maintenance is option 1. The original battery duplication will get fixed upstream.
Chris On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 13:58 +0000, Daniel T Chen wrote: > After briefly discussing this bug with Seb and Brian yesterday, it is > worth noting that we should consider one of these options, too: > > 1) Drop this patch (01_proc_sys_batteries); > 2) Invert the logic in this patch so that Gutsy's behaviour (reading > /proc/acpi) is restored. This means ignoring sysfs for power in instances > where both /proc/acpi and sysfs exist. > > >From what I gather, the sysfs interface is preferable to /proc/acpi, but > Seb mentioned there also being backlight issues even with the slew of > patches backported from fd.o hal.git. > > Choosing option (1) above is fairly straightforward: it eliminates this > and several other bugs at the expense of possibly duplicated power > source entries in g-p-m (this latter bit possibly being as major as > "omgconfusedbbq" - a minor annoyance but bearable IMO). Gutsy's > behaviour will be restored mostly (save the duplication). > > Choosing option (2) above is less straightforward: it also eliminates > this and several other bugs; Gutsy's behaviour will be restored. > However, Ubuntu will need to maintain this "inverted patch" for several > years, since upstream has already deprecated reading /proc/acpi for > power in favour of sysfs. Ultimately the questions involved must > include, "Will the power estimation and backlight regressions be fixed > in time for Hardy?" > > In light of 8.04 being LTS, we should entertain keeping the path that > seems to cause fewer regressions. > > Thoughts? > -- 01_proc_sys_batteries.patch causes a regression making gnome-power-manager not detect the battery properly https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/194719 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
