[Pkg-acpi-devel] Bug#697246: Bug#697246: closed by Michael Meskes <meskes at debian.org> (Re: Bug#697246: acpi-support-base: powerbtn-acpi-support.sh checks incorrect file for backwards compatibility)

[Yury Sobolev]

On Jan 16, 2013 11:48 AM, "Michael Meskes" <meskes at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:17:40AM -0500, Yury Sobolev wrote:
> > The script should "do the right thing." The bug may not be an issue on a
>
> Define "do the right thing".

I did in my previous email, but please see below.

> > default install, but only by sheer luck. Upowerd should be given the
chance
>
> Why is this luck? All power managers are checked for, aren't they? If you
keep
> on trolling like this, don't be surprised when no answer comes anymore.

No, the MATE one is not checked for. It may not be a part of Debian, but it
is still something that people use. I cannot see a good reason not to
support it, but it was declined in another bug report.

Also, please refrain from attacks ad hominem. I am filing this bug report
in hopes of helping future users. The bug is patched on my system. I find
your calling my efforts "trolling" quite hurtful and inappropriate. I have
treated you with nothing but respect.

> > to catch and process the power event. At the moment upowerd works
correctly
>
> Again: Why?

This is what I mean by "the right thing." When the power button is pressed,
upowerd gets the event, but the machine is already shutting down unless a
_supported_ power manager is running. Rather than enumerating every
possible power manager, I believe directly checking for upowerd is the
right thing to do. This is what the previous versions of the script did.

> > only in the presence of a display manager. If the display manager is
> > removed, and the user chooses to run a startx session from the terminal,
> > upower will not function correctly. There is no dependency listed on the
> > upower package for a display manager.
> >
> > Would you like me to open this as a bug against upower? It is clearly
> > something that should be fixed here, but it affects the upower package.
>
> Eh? Don't ask me about upowerd, ask the upowerd mainatainers. And no, it
is
> *not* something that clearly should be fixed here. There simply is no bug
to
> fix here atm. Well, at least you didn't show me one yet.

Alright, I will ask the upower maintainers what they think and drop the
issue if they agree with your decision.

> > The change required is also very small. Only a check for upower needs
to be
> > made. This would not adversely affect behavior on any "standard" Debian
> > system, but it would handle more corner cases correctly.
>
> Again, your proposed change is *not* correct IMO.
>
> You might want to check my email and answer the questions in there. But
then
> again, you may not.

Did you send me a personal email? I did not receive it.

-Yury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-acpi-devel/attachments/20130116/918cbc28/attachment.html>