Hi Christian,
Christian Perrier wrote:
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.
Yeah, that is a very annoying decision. IMO "Work without /proc/acpi" is
something that should go in as a general release goal like the bash
transition -- don't change the default in the first release, but file
bugs against anything that breaks if you do. Then change the default in
the next 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.
There may be much more breakage waiting to be found, and there's no time
to fix it all. These kind of changes need months of testing!
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.
Definitely, and it was already planned for a future update -- I just
wasn't aware that this default had changed already. :-/
Cheers,
Bart
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
