G-P-M on the wrong track?!

Matthias Grimm matthiasgrimm at users.sourceforge.net
Mon Oct 17 10:24:44 PDT 2005

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:58:35 -0400
"John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp at redhat.com> wrote:

> This is all stuff that is just better if we all collaborate on one
> solution.  The client are different but on the backend it seems
> worthwhile.  Powersave should really be moved to fd.o if we do go down
> that road but that is a different issue.

IMHO this must be the main aim: To get a generic powermanagement backend.

We won't have one generic power management daemon in the first step. The
differences between architectures are to big for this approach but we could
generalize the interface to the desktop.

So the fist steps will be:
  - define a power management infrastructure in HAL which a power
    management daemon has to fill
  - define a power configuration setup in HAL which the PM daemon
    should take into account. Options set in HAL overwrite default
    options of the PM daemon.
  - define a set of and dbus signal and methods for commands a user
    might want send to a PM daemon.

Existing daemons like powersave for SuSE or pbbuttonsd for powermac
machines for example then should implement this interface to test and
prove it. G-P-M might become the perfect GUI for Gnome here and test
the interface from the client side. Other desktop application
programmers could do the same. At the end we should have a generic and
hopefully easy extendable power mnagement interface between a backend
and the desktop.

After this is done and we have really a lot of unused spare time, we
could try to merge all power management daemons and create The One and
Only. But this is another story telled another day :-)

  Best Regards

More information about the hal mailing list