Comment 38 for bug 194719
Revision history for this message
| Chris McCauley (chris-avondalepark) wrote Re: [Bug 194719] Re: 01_proc_sys_batteries.patch causes a regression making gnome-power-manager not detect the battery properly | #38 |
Hi,
It sounds like the simplest course in terms of maintenance is option 1.
The original battery duplication will get fixed upstream.
Chris
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 13:58 +0000, Daniel T Chen wrote:
> After briefly discussing this bug with Seb and Brian yesterday, it is
> worth noting that we should consider one of these options, too:
>
> 1) Drop this patch (01_proc_
> 2) Invert the logic in this patch so that Gutsy's behaviour (reading /proc/acpi) is restored. This means ignoring sysfs for power in instances where both /proc/acpi and sysfs exist.
>
> >From what I gather, the sysfs interface is preferable to /proc/acpi, but
> Seb mentioned there also being backlight issues even with the slew of
> patches backported from fd.o hal.git.
>
> Choosing option (1) above is fairly straightforward: it eliminates this
> and several other bugs at the expense of possibly duplicated power
> source entries in g-p-m (this latter bit possibly being as major as
> "omgconfusedbbq" - a minor annoyance but bearable IMO). Gutsy's
> behaviour will be restored mostly (save the duplication).
>
> Choosing option (2) above is less straightforward: it also eliminates
> this and several other bugs; Gutsy's behaviour will be restored.
> However, Ubuntu will need to maintain this "inverted patch" for several
> years, since upstream has already deprecated reading /proc/acpi for
> power in favour of sysfs. Ultimately the questions involved must
> include, "Will the power estimation and backlight regressions be fixed
> in time for Hardy?"
>
> In light of 8.04 being LTS, we should entertain keeping the path that
> seems to cause fewer regressions.
>
> Thoughts?
>