On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:15:11 -0300 (ADT), "Jared D. McNeill"
<jmcneill@invisible.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > In a separate vein, the laptop support for ACPI just isn't good enough
> > yet; it doesn't provide enough functionality.  I'd love to run ACPI
> > (partly because I want the better battery status information), but I'd have
> > to give up USB support, which just isn't worth it.  There was a wonderful
> > burst of progress a few months ago, but nothing recently.
> 
> We are talking about using envsys as an API vs. /dev/apm, not removing 
> apm(4) support from the kernel.
> 
Understood.  I'm saying that /dev/apm needs to persist until we also find
the energy to fix the applications that use /dev/apm.  There are at least
3 packages in pkgsrc that use it (more precisely, grepping patch-*
for /dev/apm gets three hits, and I think there are more), plus the apm
command itself since some of its modes are better for scripts than envstat.


		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb