Fwd: Proposal for resolving powernowd/apmd vs. (k)powersave conflict

[Luka Renko]

On 3/10/06, Michael Biebl <biebl at teco.edu> wrote:
>
> Our first priority should be, to get (k)powersave seamlessly integrated
> into Kubuntu. Ubuntu won't swich to (k)powersave for Dapper anyways.
> In addition IIRC kubuntu-desktop and ubuntu-desktop can't be installed
> side by side.


You can have several desktops installed at the same time - my laptop
curently have both ubuntu-desktop and kubuntu-desktop as I am also testing
GNOME powert management.
I think we will need to address this for Dapper (not to break everything
under ubuntu-desktop).

Let's focus on Kubuntu for now. GNOME and g-p-m should be Dapper+1
> (Although g-p-m should work with powersaved if it uses only the hal
> callout scripts)


That will work, but not sure how much is g-p-m dependant on powernowd which
will not exist. But I will test this  just to be sure.


> Only for some of the scripts in /etc/acpi. Not all of them contain this
> check (see also my comment on option 2 below).



Do we then at all need acpi-support? We need it for ubuntu-desktop for sure,
but for powersave we should avoid it. I  am concerned that for Dapper we
will need to work with acpi-support and cannot avoid it.

>
> Well, if powersaved is in charge of the power management, it is best to
> let it handle all the acpi events. Take /etc/acpi/power.sh from
> acpi-support: It collides with the set_disk_settings script from
> powersaved (although it does not cause ill effects)


Sure, this is why acpi-support should check for powersaved for stuff that is
handled by powersaved.


We could go with 2, but that means that we would have to modify
> acpi-support, which requires additional work and new uploads, resulting
> in even less time to test (k)powersave. The powersaved package as of now
> wouldn't require changes for acpi-support, that's why I prefer this
> solution.


I just think 2. may be easier to get through for Dapper.


For Dapper+1 we could tackle this issue properly and try to provide a
> common script library that both acpi-support and powersaved could use.
> Maybe we can convince the acpi-support and powersaved devs to avoid
> duplication of work. But this is definitely not an option for Dapper.


I hope we can make even greater progress for Dapper - including more
allignement between acpi-support+g-p-m guys and powersave team.


Regards,
Luka
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-devel/attachments/20060310/6dae79b3/attachment.htm