G-P-M on the wrong track?!

[Davide Bolcioni]

Danny Kukawka wrote:
> On Monday 17 October 2005 14:42, you wrote:
> 
>>>This is what we do with powersave [1] on SUSE and ALT Linux. There is a
>>>(desktop and arch (ix86, ix86_64, ia64 and now also ppc) independent)
>>>daemon which only do powermanagement and which also do powermanagement if
>>>there is no desktop user logged in.
>>
>>What use case has this got? How many times on battery do you leave your
>>laptop at the login screen? There was talk of integrating g-p-m with gpm
>>so that it runs at the login prompt (with the preferences of root), but
>>I'm not sure how far this idea actually got.
> 
> 
> This is a needed feature. There are not only laptops on battery. This was only 
> one example. Other expample: You run you laptop on AC or your desktop machine 
> and want to suspend or change cpufreq or set a special powerscheme as 
> user/root without login to desktop. There are many possible use cases. We 
> know this requirement from develop powersave and SUSE users since the start 
> of the project. There are also several user which want to use the daemon 
> without login from a script and also this work well with powersave.
> 
> And last but not least: there is not only GNOME and g-p-m. Why reimplement a 
> system basic service for each desktop system. With a powermanagement daemon I 
> can Implement hundreds of different clients for what ever desktop I want. 
> (and IMO we need a own daemon for this and not HAL)
> 
> Btw. note powersave is only one example, This is a general design discussion. 

Also note that if powersave, or any equivalent piece of functionality,
is a separate package, I can choose not to install it - one less package 
to worry about. Of course, HAL should not hardcode an RPM dependency on
such stuff, but discover it at launch or upon first request.

Conversely, if something better than HAL comes out, I need not worry 
about losing power saving features.

Just my $0,02

Davide Bolcioni
-- 
Paranoia is an afterthought.