Bug 152941

Summary:	Kpowersave daemon not updating from hal
Product:	[openSUSE] SUSE LINUX 10.0	Reporter:	Jonathon Robison <jrobiso2>
Component:	KDE	Assignee:	Danny Kukawka <dkukawka>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	E-mail List <qa-bugs>
Severity:	Major
Priority:	P5 - None
Version:	Final
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	i586
OS:	SuSE Linux 10.0
Whiteboard:
Found By:	Beta-Customer	Services Priority:
Business Priority:		Blocker:	---
Marketing QA Status:	---	IT Deployment:	---
Attachments:	Output of lshal

Description Jonathon Robison 2006-02-22 22:01:03 UTC

KPowersave isn't tracking battery charge level changes. hal seems fine (tested with lshal --monitor and lshal | grep battery), but kpowersave fails to see any change in battery charge level. Re-starting /etc/init.d/powersave updates it, but it then stays at the new updated level.

'acpi -Vf' correctly shows battery charge changes, and so goes gkrellm. hal seems to be tracking it properly too. Only Kpowersave fails to track.

Additional data: Booting from battery, Kpowersave thinks it is plugged in (shows pluggedin icon) and uses Performance scheme. plug it in, then remove plug, and it senses that change and changes to Powersave scheme. However, icon shows no charge and mouseover says 1% (while acpi and hal are saying 91%, etc.)

Comment 1 Jonathon Robison 2006-02-22 22:04:13 UTC

Created attachment 69877 [details]
Output of lshal

Comment 2 Jonathon Robison 2006-02-22 22:09:30 UTC

http://sourceforge.net/projects/powersave/ talks about fixing "broken" SuSE 10.0 packages.  It also says we have to upgrade cpufrequtils to 0.4 for their fix to work.

Comment 3 Jonathon Robison 2006-02-22 22:44:14 UTC

Updating to the kpowersave and cpufrequtils packages from sourceforge fixed it.

Anyone at SuSE prepared to run a quick regression test on those packages and put them in updates?

Comment 4 Danny Al-Gaaf 2006-02-23 10:35:39 UTC

Did you made complete YOU update? What say powersave -B and powersave -x ?

to #1: what was this lshal? on ac/on battery?
to #2: this has nothing to do with this. If you read the news correct the packages for 10.0 where only broken. They was broken because they was build against 10.1 and not because there where any other bugs. Btw. this packages on sf.net are unstable development versions.
to #3: IMO you already get the answer from Stefan Seyfried about this and also because of my comment to #2 we not plan any update. The updates of cpufrequtils and sysfsutils are related to the development version and the packages we use in 10.1