Hi,
In not so recent past, powertop2 alpha has been released [1] and it is currently in version 1.97. It is usuable and I was thinking about packaging it for Fedora. However, there is already "old" powertop. So I will have to package it as powertop2 because it is completely different tool.
Does it have sense to package it as powertop2? Or should rather powertop package maintainer update powertop package with new sources (even when they are considered as alpha)? As both tools have same binary name, localization file and manpage, should be source code updated and all occurence of word "powertop" replaced with word "powertop2"? Or how this situation should be handled?
[1] http://blog.fenrus.org/?p=80
Regards, Jan Klepek
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:53:31PM +0100, jan.klepek wrote:
In not so recent past, powertop2 alpha has been released [1] and it is currently in version 1.97. It is usuable and I was thinking about packaging it for Fedora. However, there is already "old" powertop. So I will have to package it as powertop2 because it is completely different tool. Does it have sense to package it as powertop2? Or should rather powertop package maintainer update powertop package with new sources (even when they are considered as alpha)?
Is powertop1 going to continue to be updated ? I would assume not, and having both in the archive is just going to cause confusion.
What's wrong with waiting for the non-alpha version, and then updating the existing powertop package ?
Dave
On 3/14/11 1:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:53:31PM +0100, jan.klepek wrote:
In not so recent past, powertop2 alpha has been released [1] and it is currently in version 1.97. It is usuable and I was thinking about packaging it for Fedora. However, there is already "old" powertop. So I will have to package it as powertop2 because it is completely different tool. Does it have sense to package it as powertop2? Or should rather powertop package maintainer update powertop package with new sources (even when they are considered as alpha)?
Is powertop1 going to continue to be updated ? I would assume not, and having both in the archive is just going to cause confusion.
What's wrong with waiting for the non-alpha version, and then updating the existing powertop package ?
Dave
Er, isn't it already built for fedora? I think the migration is well in hand. :)
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/powertop/1.97/
-Eric
On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 13:13 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 3/14/11 1:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:53:31PM +0100, jan.klepek wrote:
In not so recent past, powertop2 alpha has been released [1] and it is currently in version 1.97. It is usuable and I was thinking about packaging it for Fedora. However, there is already "old" powertop. So I will have to package it as powertop2 because it is completely different tool. Does it have sense to package it as powertop2? Or should rather powertop package maintainer update powertop package with new sources (even when they are considered as alpha)?
Is powertop1 going to continue to be updated ? I would assume not, and having both in the archive is just going to cause confusion.
What's wrong with waiting for the non-alpha version, and then updating the existing powertop package ?
Dave
Er, isn't it already built for fedora? I think the migration is well in hand. :)
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/powertop/1.97/
-Eric
Good to know, I somehow missed this in powertop fedora git :( Thanks for info Eric.
Regards, Jan
Hi,
powertop 2.0 is currently in beta (aka 1.97) and was proposed and approved as feature for F15: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PowerManagementF15
regards
Jaroslav
-
Dave Jones -
Eric Sandeen -
jan.klepek -
Jaroslav Skarvada