[PATCH] UPower signaling obsolescence

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 22:07 +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 10:16 +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 20/03/16 20:39, poma wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > "Newer upower versions no longer emit that signal since this
> > > > handled by systemd."
> > > > by Michael Biebl <mbiebl at gmail.org>
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/devkit-devel/2014-March/
> > > > 0015
> > > > 75.html
> > > > 
> > > > See also "Plans for UPower 1.0"
> > > > by Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com>
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/devkit-devel/2013-Januar
> > > > y/00
> > > > 1339.html
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: poma <pomidorabelisima at gmail.com>
> > > Yeah, it may be a good idea to remove this. I explicitly avoided
> > > talking
> > > about upower in the NEWS, only because of this.
> > > 
> > > But NetworkManager still has the same build option; is there
> > > anything
> > > we're missing? or is it that NM should also remove upower support
> > > for
> > > suspend/resume?
> > I wasn't really tracking the deprecation stuff for UPower and NM,
> > though Lubomir might have.  The only question I'd have is whether
> > people use current versions of NM and MM on systems that still run
> > older versions of UPower, and if so, how long do we support that.
> IIIRC, when I first ported the suspend/resume from NM to MM I had to
> compile myself a very old upower in order to even test it, and that
> was at least 1 year ago already. I think we should really remove that
> as poma suggested. Richard's email explaining the 1.0 plans is
> already
> 3 years old.

Ok, sure.

Dan