Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #56668 > unrolled thread

Question about x86_energy_perf_policy

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  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

#56668 — Question about x86_energy_perf_policy

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

Hi,

Sorry if it has been already answered elsewhere, I didn't find anything
on this matter despite a fair bit of googling (except the two years old
bug #778249).

So, I'm the maintainer of the TLP package and one of its functions need
the x86_energy_perf_policy binary. It's not mandatory by any means, TLP
offers many other features to save battery power, but my question is
more from personal curiosity.

Ubuntu provides this tool in the linux-tools package, but in Debian it's
not provided at all. Currently I plan to prepare an upload that I hope
will make it to stretch, which will use a substitution variable to
generate different dependencies for Debian and Ubuntu.

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 ?

Please CC me when answering, as I'm not subscribed to the list.

Regards,

-- 
Raphaël Halimi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#56717

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

On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 15:36 +0100, Raphaël Halimi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry if it has been already answered elsewhere, I didn't find anything
> on this matter despite a fair bit of googling (except the two years old
> bug #778249).
> 
> So, I'm the maintainer of the TLP package and one of its functions need
> the x86_energy_perf_policy binary. It's not mandatory by any means, TLP
> offers many other features to save battery power, but my question is
> more from personal curiosity.
> 
> Ubuntu provides this tool in the linux-tools package, but in Debian it's
> not provided at all. Currently I plan to prepare an upload that I hope
> will make it to stretch, which will use a substitution variable to
> generate different dependencies for Debian and Ubuntu.
> 
> 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.

Ben.

> Please CC me when answering, as I'm not subscribed to the list.
> 
> Regards,
> 
-- 
Ben Hutchings
Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56724

[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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web