On Monday 08 June 2009 22:38:26 Arjen de Korte wrote: > Citeren Alexander Gordeev <[email protected]>: > >> But in the remote case those lines really do something, removing them > >> will at most cause some glitches in some single model that only one > >> person has. So I guess if they are causing problems with megatec_usb > >> (and USB models are much more popular nowadays), it is better to just > >> remove them. > > > > Thanks! > > So I'll remove them and we'll see if anyone complains. :) > > I hereby do (and also exercise my authority of Prime NUT Senior > Lieutenant to enforce this... :-) > > 1) What functionality is there in megatec_usb that isn't also present > in blazer_usb? Remember that the first is scheduled to be replaced by > the latter in the future. > > 2) If the above isn't feasible for now, consider reworking the megatec > driver to be split in an interface independent core driver and two > subdrivers that handle the serial and USB commnunication respectively. > Something along the lines of the blazer core and blazer-ser and > blazer-usb subdrivers. By doing so, you cleanly separate these > interfaces, while keeping the common stuff neatly packages in one place.
Sure, you are right and blazer_* should replace megatec* and I don't want to reinvent the wheel redoing what you have already done. But anyway I wanted to fix this bug just because it exists. We can do this as well by throwing megatec* away. :) I'm ok with both ways. But IMO we shouldn't throw it away until the next release so that we can prepare the users to the transition. -- Alexander _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
