Bug#930869: Asked to try and mediate this bug.
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Control: tags -1 +moreinfo
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:26:01AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Unfortunately, to do that, I'm going to need to ask at least one
> question that Adam is already asked.
[...]
Michael: if you have trouble naming either any particular problem, or a
viable replacement for this package, I assume there are none. If that's
incorrect, please provide more info before bumping the severity again.
The only remaining actionable part of this bug are the hacks ("quirks")
for buggy machines. Having researched the package a bit more, I see that
they talk to real-mode display BIOS -- such machines generally stopped
being manufactured roughly at the time pm-utils became unmaintained
upstream, thus I wonder whether that particular part of the code can be
said to "do more more harm then good". I'd wary before pulling the quirks
from under potentially working hardware.
But, I have no way to check that: none of 5 laptops I have even _has_ a
real-mode BIOS (three because of being non-x86, two because of level 3
UEFI without CSM). And for my non-laptops, which range from a 2004 box to
this year's stuff, pm-utils work perfectly without quirks.
So there are two questions:
* are pm-utils useful on non-quirk hardware?
• my answer is a strong "yes"
* should code for legacy hardware be kept if it can't be tested?
• this part I can't answer
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ According to recent spams, "all my email accounts are owned
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ by a hacker". So what's the problem?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: