On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:51, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/7/3 Richard Hughes :
>> How's that for a compromise?
>
> Ohh, forgot to add, I've reverted the stuff from DeviceKit-power and
> g-p-m as I wanted to make a release on Monday, and don't want to
> release code in one release that we remove/mo
Richard Hughes [2009-07-03 19:57 +0100]:
> I would be happy to maintain a tiny service called
> DeviceKit-backlight, and remove all the backlight stuff from
> DeviceKit-power if that's a compromise people are willing to accept.
>
> We can then remove only install DeviceKit-backlight on embedded
>
2009/7/3 Richard Hughes :
> How's that for a compromise?
Ohh, forgot to add, I've reverted the stuff from DeviceKit-power and
g-p-m as I wanted to make a release on Monday, and don't want to
release code in one release that we remove/move in the very next.
I also didn't appreciate the aggressiven
2009/7/3 Ali Abdallah :
> I have a suggestion, since backlight class exists in the kernel and it
> *works*, then best
> to have separate addon service from dkp just for doing these stuff, this
> will keep *users* happy,
> then dropping this service will be something easy without touching the dkp.
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 19:16 +0200, Ali Abdallah wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> > but instead require people that use
> > the code to define I_KNOW_DKP_BACKLIGHT_IS_TEMPORARY
>
> This temporary thing will stay for 5 years at least, i saved this mail,
> will send it back.
No, this thing will
Richard Hughes wrote:
> but instead require people that use
> the code to define I_KNOW_DKP_BACKLIGHT_IS_TEMPORARY
This temporary thing will stay for 5 years at least, i saved this mail,
will send it back.
If this is not going to be implemented in dkp then people will just
stick with HAL
or wi
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 17:57, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Adding this
> backlight stuff to DeviceKit-power is a bad thing to do since this
> belongs in the display server. We all agree on that it seems.
> So please revert the patch and let's get on with our lives.
Yes, please.
Please add the interfa
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 16:40 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/7/3 David Zeuthen :
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 16:08 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >> I'm not going to revert the patch,
> >
> > Then I will revert it if you don't. Seriously, Richard, we are _not_
> > going to go down the wrong path h
2009/7/3 David Zeuthen :
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 16:08 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> I'm not going to revert the patch,
>
> Then I will revert it if you don't. Seriously, Richard, we are _not_
> going to go down the wrong path here. I don't know why that point is so
> hard to get across.
I will
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 16:08 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/7/3 David Zeuthen :
> > So you really need to revert that patch and stop trying to pretend to
> > solve the worlds problems by violating the layering the rest of us are
> > actually trying to make work. If you want to fix backlight, go
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 17:08, Richard Hughes wrote:
> If ajax ripped support out for non all X drivers that didn't support
> KMS (even though we all know KMS is the future) then the people with
> no display output would get rightly pissed off.
Well, you have the choice which people to piss off no
2009/7/3 David Zeuthen :
> So you really need to revert that patch and stop trying to pretend to
> solve the worlds problems by violating the layering the rest of us are
> actually trying to make work. If you want to fix backlight, go hack on X
> or Wayland. Don't invent your own public interfaces
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 16:13, David Zeuthen wrote:
> (As a matter of fact, we've learned the really hard way (with HAL) that
> it doesn't work that way. And while HAL made things a bit better in the
> short-term, HAL is an unmaintable piece of crap that we're finally close
> to getting rid of now.
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:01 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
[Lots of good explanations about deficiencies in X snipped]
> Right, and fixing X is more than just a few hours work. I'll make you
> a promise: If XBACKLIGHT works for me on my T61 (intel, KMS), my Dell
> (nouveau, non-KMS) and my notebook
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 16:01, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/7/3 David Zeuthen :
>> It's completely wrong to do this as this, for example, will break
>> multi-monitor setups. You should know very well that it's outside the
>> scope of DeviceKit-power to do this - instead, I believe, you want to
>> fi
2009/7/3 David Zeuthen :
> It's completely wrong to do this as this, for example, will break
> multi-monitor setups. You should know very well that it's outside the
> scope of DeviceKit-power to do this - instead, I believe, you want to
> fix X or whatever display server you are using.
Right, and
Hey,
Sorry for not responding sooner, I mistook this message to only be about
ambient light sensors.
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 12:33 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> * Do we still need to support backlight devices, even in a XBACKLIGHT world?
No, please revert the patches you just committed.
It's com
Richard Hughes wrote:
> As we all know, the hal-ectimisation continues. At the moment,
> gnome-power-manager still uses HAL for two things:
>
> * Ambient light sensors
> * Setting the backlight on hardware without xrandr BRIGHTNESS support,
> or where xrandr falls over
>
> Now, I've held off adding
As we all know, the hal-ectimisation continues. At the moment,
gnome-power-manager still uses HAL for two things:
* Ambient light sensors
* Setting the backlight on hardware without xrandr BRIGHTNESS support,
or where xrandr falls over
Now, I've held off adding support for backlight devices to
De
19 matches
Mail list logo
