Re: acpitool vs acpi-support
On 11/14/09, T o n g <mlist4suntong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The acpitool and acpi-support look very similar to me:
>
> acpitool:
>
> acpi-support:
>
> ...
>
> --
> Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
In the old days I used to have both installed. However the support
provided by acpi-support, which something acpitool didn't, never
really gave anything other than the lid handling (I was lazy enough
not right my own).
Besides acpi-support now a days depend upon pm-utils, which in turn
depends on hal. So I just got rid of acpi-support. One can't just
get rid of pm-utils that easily since is a dependency for several
other stuff, although I whish I could. To suspend to ram I just use
"acpitool -s", and to disk "acpitool -S"
However I don't use desktop environment. For frequency scaling and
the like, I use cpufreqd and cpufrequtils. For sensors I use
lm_sensors, and for HD controlling I use laptop-mode-tools...
So it alldepends. If you find the buttons support provided by
acpi-support handy (I never did), then you should use it. Otherwise
you might get rid of it. Things like suspending can be handled by
pm-utils (if you like it), or acpitool, and pm-utils is now a
dependency for acpi-support, so you don't need the last.
And if you use desktop environment, most probably some of these tools
I mentioned will be dependencies any ways, plus who knows what other
ones, :-)
Please notice they both can coexist with no problem though...
--
Javier.
Reply to: