On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 22:07 +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 10:16 +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > > > > > > On 20/03/16 20:39, poma wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Newer upower versions no longer emit that signal since this > > > > handled by systemd." > > > > by Michael Biebl <[email protected]> > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/devkit-devel/2014-March/ > > > > 0015 > > > > 75.html > > > > > > > > See also "Plans for UPower 1.0" > > > > by Richard Hughes <[email protected]> > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/devkit-devel/2013-Januar > > > > y/00 > > > > 1339.html > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: poma <[email protected]> > > > Yeah, it may be a good idea to remove this. I explicitly avoided > > > talking > > > about upower in the NEWS, only because of this. > > > > > > But NetworkManager still has the same build option; is there > > > anything > > > we're missing? or is it that NM should also remove upower support > > > for > > > suspend/resume? > > I wasn't really tracking the deprecation stuff for UPower and NM, > > though Lubomir might have. The only question I'd have is whether > > people use current versions of NM and MM on systems that still run > > older versions of UPower, and if so, how long do we support that. > IIIRC, when I first ported the suspend/resume from NM to MM I had to > compile myself a very old upower in order to even test it, and that > was at least 1 year ago already. I think we should really remove that > as poma suggested. Richard's email explaining the 1.0 plans is > already > 3 years old.
Ok, sure. Dan _______________________________________________ ModemManager-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel
