If you allow me to suggest, I also think it´s best to ship it with hdparm package. The same logic explicited in README.distributions of pm-utils applies to acpi-support.
Also, it would create again a dependency between acpi-support and hdparm just because of this script. Many thanks Igor On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Michael Meskes <mes...@debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 03:46:03PM -0300, Igor Palmieri wrote: > > - acpi-support (partially) solved #448673 by including 90-hdparm.sh > hooks > > by default at Debian and Ubuntu[1] > > - The 90-hdparm-sh hooks were incorporated at Ubuntu´s pm-utils package, > > which also makes hard drive apm working by default[2]. Couldn´t find if > > Debian did this too. > > - Debian and Ubuntu removed 90-hdparm.sh scripts from acpi-support > because > > of the redundancy with pm-utils[3] > > - The hooks /usr/lib/pm-utils/power.d/95hdparm-apm and > > /usr/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d/95hdparm-apm were transferred to Ubuntu´s > hdparm > > package - that´s their current setting - and removed from pm-utils of > > both[4] > > > > So Ubuntu still have the default hd apm setting, Debian not. > > Thanks a lot for this explanation, exactly what I was looking for. > > Now the big question is, wouldn't it be better if we add the scripts to > hdparm, > too? They don't naturally belong to acpi-support IMO. Stephen, what do you > think? > > I'm absolutely willing to help with the packaging work in hdparm if time > constraints are a problem. > > 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 >
