On Friday 02 December 2005 14.13, Kevin Locke wrote:
> Would it be better to spend our time adding features to the Gnome Power
> Manager and equivalents instead of creating a separate program?
The problem here is the *Gnome and equivalents*. IMHO any work spent to
extend the functionality of the
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nobody said the user can't give his input on how the service will behave.
> > That's what the GUI is for, and what configuration files are for.
>
> The user needs to be able to configure this w
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody said the user can't give his input on how the service will behave.
> That's what the GUI is for, and what configuration files are for.
The user needs to be able to configure this without any form of
excessive privileges, which means
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. power management is system infrastructure. I can explain WHY it
> > is so, but I don't think many people would argue that power
> > management is an user-level service.
>
>
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. power management is system infrastructure. I can explain WHY it
> is so, but I don't think many people would argue that power
> management is an user-level service.
Whether a laptop suspends when you close the lid is a per-
Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. I wasn't aware to what extent HAL is able to notify
> programs about power-related events. In fact, we had briefly discussed
> receiving events from HAL in addition to the power-daemons. Perhaps
> with some work, we would be able to rely com
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Kevin Locke wrote:
> What are your (or anyone else's) thoughts about the value of a daemon to
> invoke scripts based on the power-related HAL events? Is this
> unnecessary given the function of the GNOME Power Manager and
> equivalents, or would it have enough value to be wort
Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I realize that the
> GNOME Power Manager[1], and likely a KDE equivalent, already handles
> several of the tasks normally associated with power-management, so
> perhaps there is no need for another program to be handling events.
>
> What are your (
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 10:47 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Fundamentally, our goal is to create an architecture-independent,
> > power-system-independent, and power-daemon-independent system to handle
> > power-related events (e.g. lid close, battery
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I tell HAL to just handle power management instead of touching anything
> else, and get it to do the right thing in a headless, GUIless server
> environment? Can I do that with standard, system-wide configuration files?
HAL on its own
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> To a large extent, this sort of work is currently being done in HAL. Is
> there any need to create another level of abstraction, or should we just
> work on that? It also sounds (though I'm not certain) like you're
Can I tell HAL to just handle power m
Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fundamentally, our goal is to create an architecture-independent,
> power-system-independent, and power-daemon-independent system to handle
> power-related events (e.g. lid close, battery events). This will likely
> happen by hooks from the power daemons (
Greetings -devel,
It is my pleasure to announce the creation of a project to create a
common power-management framework[1] for Debian (and eventually, the
world). This idea, in various forms, has been discussed several times
in the past[2][3] with a generally positive response. These ideas have
13 matches
Mail list logo
