Re: TLP package vs. pm-utils
Thomas Koch [2014-10-09 20:18 +0200]:
> Looking into the current pm-utils package in Debian testing i noticed
> that it is kind of inert: nor is pm-powersave called by upowerd –
> changed in upower 0.99.1-1
That is a good point. I didn't really notice yet as in Ubuntu we still
have the older upower, but this indeed will degrade power usage :/
> see  –, neither is pm-suspend called by systemd's sleep.target.
Not by systemd as pid 1, but if you run with upstart or sysvinit,
systemd-shim will use pm-utils if it is installed, so that suspend
quirks still work.
IMHO it is a bit unfortunate that all the suspend quirks and power
management scripts were so lightly discarded upstream. I do understand
their perspective of "fix stuff in the kernel", but in a distribution
we have a slightly different perspective (e. g. consider an admin of a
stable release -- what will he realistically be able to do: add a
documented quirk to a text file, or fix the nvidia graphics driver?)
> My conclusion would be to add
> > conflicts: pm-utils
> to my package – associated with the additional advantage that there is
> no need to mask pm-utils' power.d/hooks via postinst/postrm anymore .
That seems a bit harsh and unnecessary -- you said that pm-utils was
inert, not breaking TLP or systemd in any way? As it's still useful on
non-systemd systems, I don't see a technical reason for the conflict.
One of these days in the future we should put a conflict to pm-utils
to clean it up on upgrades when we are ready to not support old
hardware any more that still needs quirks, and the kernel or another
component does a good enough power management by itself. But from my
POV that day hasn't come yet, I still run into laptops which need
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)