Re: Question about x86_energy_perf_policy

From	Raphaël Halimi <raphael.halimi@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.kernel
Subject	Re: Question about x86_energy_perf_policy
Date	2017-01-24 10:50 +0100
Message-ID	<t35TI-2Be-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<t2rtf-1TN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <t30r0-7yx-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Le 24/01/2017 à 04:58, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
>> But still, by sheer curiosity, I'd like to know : is there a reason for
>> Debian not providing this binary, and/or plans to change that ?
> 
> I'll add it to the linux-cpupower package.  Sorry that this is still
> different from Ubuntu, but I don't think their packaging is very
> sensible.

Thanks for the answer. I don't mind the two packages named differently
in Debian and Ubuntu, I settled this in my source package thanks to
Raphaël Hertzog's blog entry about this [1].

[1]
https://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/09/27/different-dependencies-between-debian-and-ubuntu-but-common-source-package/

My question was more about the reason why the binary was missing from
Debian, but then again, I was just curious.

Regards,

-- 
Raphaël Halimi

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Question about x86_energy_perf_policy Raphaël Halimi <raphael.halimi@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 15:40 +0100
  Re: Question about x86_energy_perf_policy Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-01-24 05:00 +0100
    Re: Question about x86_energy_perf_policy Raphaël Halimi <raphael.halimi@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:50 +0100

csiph-web