On 4/8/25 15:47, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 5:46 AM Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote:
On 4/8/25 10:08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Thomas, I think a 2-day NMU fixing only this bug is appropriate, but
since you got review feedback from Sandro, try to go through it in order
to improve the change.
I'm happy to comply to any suggestion. So far, I haven't read any that
deserve a change, only one remark about the ordering of ADP0 before AC
and AC0, though IMO that's not changing anything to the final result
(ie: have all 3 (AC, AC0 and ADP0) supported). Though if that is the
only blocker, I'll happily do as suggested.
in my reply, i asked you 3 questions: let me cut and paste them here
below so you may have a chance to answer them:
1. have you contacted upstream about this patch?
2. do you have any references in the kernel code for this new path?
3. or a reason why sometimes you added ADP0 as the first item in the
list, and others as the last one?
I thought I have already replied to that already. Not sure why, but
since you're asking: let me do it again.
1/ No. Please do it yourself, since you're solo-maintaining the package.
2/ Yes. Explore a "git log" and you'll see reference to it in patch
headers. Also, my laptop's config shows the exact file structure psutil
is expecting under that folder, so that's good enough proof. Plus maybe
you should research it yourself if you want to know better. Why asking
me to do that?
3/ No reason. Just like there's no reason to put it first. That's IMO
cosmetic. Feel free to add some polish if you feel like it is important.
I don't, I feel like it's a waste of time.
Last: none of the above are valid reasons to delay the fix, or block
other DDs to fix it.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
