| 1 |
On 08/23/2014 11:22 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 23/08/2014 09:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/23/2014 10:31 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk |
| 5 |
>>> spinning, like to reduce it |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and |
| 8 |
>>> the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues |
| 9 |
>>> and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not |
| 10 |
>>> use udisks anymore |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if |
| 13 |
>>> required |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> thanks, |
| 16 |
>>> samuli |
| 17 |
>> Thanks for your response. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> I remember being advised on this list against mixing both stable and |
| 20 |
>> unstable packages as much as possible. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Does that still hold true? Or would it be OK to pull this one in without |
| 23 |
>> braking anything unnecessarily? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I think you have a wrong impression. There is actually not much wrong |
| 26 |
> with mixing stable and unstable as long as you do it sensibly. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> What you shouldn't do is to wantonly mix packages in @stable and other |
| 29 |
> basic libs and still expect it to work. Stable gcc and unstable glibc |
| 30 |
> with jpeg, zlib and openssl all mixed and matched any old way is certain |
| 31 |
> to show inconsistencies (as you will be the only person who has ever |
| 32 |
> tested that combination). |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> What is being proposed here is that you take one userland package |
| 35 |
> (xfce4-power-manager) and upgrade it to the new version. It's highly |
| 36 |
> unlikely to break anything and I can tell that just by looking at it's |
| 37 |
> purpose and where it fits in the stack. It will either work or not, and |
| 38 |
> the list of things that might link to it are a rather small list indeed. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> So just give it a spin, you can always revert if it's incompatible with |
| 41 |
> everything else you have. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> The answer to the last question you pose is correctly "mu" as no-one can |
| 44 |
> possibly answer it properly. The best we can do for you is paint the big |
| 45 |
> picture and ask you to try then report back if it works, as I have done |
| 46 |
> above. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
I'll give that whirl. Thanks. |
Archives