Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
- From: Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>
- To: Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
- Cc: Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>, GnomePowerManager List <gnome-power-manager-list gnome org>, Holger Macht <hmacht suse de>, desktop-devel-list gnome org, richard hughsie com
- Subject: Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:07:02 +0100
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 18:41 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 18:02 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> >
> >> Richard, please think about your current opinion and maybe try to help to
> >> get a good solution for the GNOME desktop which usees one common backend.
> >>
> >
> > gnome-power-manager is a 400k binary. It uses gconf to store a few
> > daemon settings and preferences.
> >
> > HAL does all the heavy lifting doing all the quirks and talking to stuff
> > in /proc and /sys.
> >
> > g-p-m is like the cherry on the cake, small and simple.
> >
> > It really doesn't do much more than:
> >
> > "If battery charge < 10% then notify the user"
> > "If battery charge < 5% then suspend if HAL thinks we can"
> >
> > I really don't see what the big issue is.
> >
> I really don't think there is (or should be) an issue with GNOME and KDE
> using different daemons to implement power management policy. That's
> what the difference between desktops *is*.
>
> However, Bob being able to send out one DBus message
> ("InhibitInactiveSleep") in BobsCrackLadenAndCPUIntensiveApp that is
> picked up by the power management daemon in GNOME and KDE, whichever the
> app is running under, may be a good thing. And if people really want to
> standardise this between desktops, this should be the point of
> standardisation.
That I could agree with.
Maybe org.gnome.PowerManager should be org.freedesktop.PowerManager?
Richard.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]