Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager

[Danny Kukawka <danny kukawka web de>]

On Tuesday 11 April 2006 18:05, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 14:33 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 +0200, Jeroen Zwartepoorte wrote:
> > > I'm curious: what role does the powersave daemon fulfill? I'm running
> > > FC5 and afaik, HAL/g-p-m gets it information directly from the OS
> > > (ACPI)?
> >
> > HAL scripts (in $prefix/libexec/hal iirc) use the underlying daemon's
> > commands to suspend/hibernate/set power save profile.
>
> In other words, the powersave daemon isn't really that useful for GNOME
> on SUSE. I guess that once we get g-p-m to run when no one is logged in,
> you guys can remove it completely on GNOME installations :-)

Sorry, that must say this: This is bulls***. 

There is no powermanagement on SUSE without powersave daemon. The powersave 
daemon provide much more functionality than g-p-m make available for the user 
at the moment. 

Powersave will never be removed from any SUSE/Novell products, because you 
can't use all the features powersave provide atm, as e.g. trigger suspend or 
change cpufrq policy, in this case. If you uninstall powersave from your SUSE 
Gnome installation also g-p-m can't e.g. suspend, also not via HAL. 

Yes, powersave handle powermanagement if there is no user and also if there is 
no X running. And this work perfect for SUSE with KDE, GNOME and every other 
windowmanager. But this is not the only reason to run powersave. The primary 
intention to develop powersave was not to have powermanagement if no user 
logged in - it was to allow powermanagement.

IMO the idea to start g-p-m in gdm is not really a good solution if you use 
more than one desktop environment -  a cross desktop solution would be much 
more better. 

Btw. I don't understand: What's the problem with a system daemon (with a well 
defined DBUS-Interface, with a well defined default policy, without need a 
session daemon) specialized to powermanagement. You can use provided 
functions, but you don't need to use all available if you don't need them in 
g-p-m. The daemon is _complete_ desktop _independent_, I think this was the 
whish of Davyd Madeley (* A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be 
suitable for cross-desktop use).

This kind of discussion is not really helpful for anyone. I would like to see 
a discussion about a cross desktop solution (if not about a special daemon 
about a well defined, fullfeatured, cross desktop dbus interface which could 
be provided by different daemons (e.g. pbbuttonsd, powersaved or what ever 
you prefer)). This would be a win-win situation for all desktops.

Regards, 

	Danny