Quoting Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > severity 491396 serious > thanks > > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Therefore, I think this deserves to be fixed for lenny, unless we want > > to release with a non-working ACPI support. > > > > I should even have tagged the bug as release critical, imho. Leaving > > that up to the maintainer. > > Agreed. Bart, can you handle that?
Well, I'm indeed really sorry for putting such pressure but this is the only way to handle these things after the very very annoying decision taken by the Kernel Team when disabling /proc/acpi so close to the release. I'm still pondering raising an RC issue on linux-2.6 for /proc/acpi to be back. I know that bugs have been reassigned to various packages when they were reported but I think I would then go up to CTTE as an attempt to revert to /proc/acpi support to be reintroduced in the kernel. I only regret not doing that much earlier when I noticed that 2/3 of my power management utilities had been broken without prior notice. Of course, when it comes at acpi-support itself, I think that supporting /sysfs would be good anyway.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
