[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#754850: upower 0.99 drops support for non-systemd
andreas at fatal.se
Thu Aug 14 22:33:35 UTC 2014
Hello Adam Borowski!
I see you've yet again made the top of my Debian Maintainer Dashboard.
I fail to see any argument on why this is not already resolved.
Please see inline answers below.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:00:16AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> It would be a wishlist issue if:
> 1. it was a request for new functionality, or
> 2. the issue was cosmetic
> What we have here is something that:
> 1. is a regression, and
> 2. makes the computer as a whole seriously less usable
Please don't make things up yourself, point to the relevant
parts of the policy for justification! If you can't find anything
in policy, then well it's not a policy violation....
> > Once you've provided a patch the maintainers should (note should, not
> > must!) consider your suggested solution
> Yes, at least one solution is simple: revert upower to the last functional
> There are other ways, like using pm-utils directly, but that would require
> actual work that, per your own words, we cannot force the maintainer to do.
That work has already been done.
As already discussed, systemd-shim is already part of xfce4-power-manager
recommends so you should already have it installed.
What part of this does not already please your wishes? Feel free to
describe them in a wishlist bug (against systemd-shim?). ;P
> > -- to be in line with the
> > tech-cttes wishes to support multiple init systems when possible.
> Which clearly states that dropping support for other init systems must not
> be done without a good reason. Here, we have:
> * upower 0.9: works with systemd, sysvinit, openrc, upstart
> * upower 0.99: works with systemd only
> So it's a straight regression, without even giving any new functionality in
This is not true. See above.
(Fwiw, D-Bus is a general IPC mechanism. It was not invented in/for systemd.)
> > and since it seems every project
> > out there are now standardising on the logind D-Bus abstraction, with
> > different backends implementations, using another API is probably not
> > worth investing time in.
> If so, the burden lies solely in the upower land, and it's that package that
> has regressed here.
> > Now that we've cleared up the confusion here, I'm adjusting the title
> > and severity of this bug report accordingly as you can see above.
> I'm restoring the title to a reasonable value (as it's a regression rather
> than a wish). The severity was wrong (grave vs serious), but that's a
> pretty minor distinction. It's certainly not "wishlist".
> I do think, though, that this bug should be reassigned back to upower as
> it's not the fault of xfce4-session, but I'm leaving this up to the
Please feel free to do so if you want me to handle it the way
Yves-Alexis Perez suggested. (eg. wontfix + close)
> Apologies for participating in a BTS ping pong, but as the severity has been
> changed by someone involved in Gnome3 rather than XFCE, I consider this
> action to have been anything but unbiased. The Gnome3 team is quite known
> for its zeal towards systemd, to the exclusion of any other init system.
More information about the Pkg-xfce-devel