Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote: > While comparing installed F13 rpms on a 32-bit laptop with a 64-bit > laptop I found that apmd is not installed on the 64-bit machine. After > trying to install it with yum I found that there are apmd rpms in > Everything/i386 and Everything/source but not in Everything/x86_64. It's > not just missing in my local repo -- it's missing in the > Everything/x86_64 directory at download.fedora.redhat.com. I tried > rebuilding the source rpm on the 64-bit machine and was abruptly advised > "error: Architecture is not included: x86_64". There's no clue in 'man > apmd'. > > Is there more to this story? At a quick guess, ACPI is the Chosen Successor to APM, and has been since well before x86-64 was introduced. So even if APM could be made to work on x86-64, I donât think anyone bothered, and you can be pretty sure that the BIOS side will never have been tested. http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/SMP-HOWTO.html: APM and SMP are not compatible, and your system will almost certainly (or at least probably ;)) crash while booting if APM is enabled (Jakob Oestergaard). Alan Cox confirms this : 2.1.x turns APM off for SMP boxes. Basically APM is undefined in the presence of SMP systems, and anything could occur. Yes, this applies for multi-core and multi-thread processors, too. On the other hand, Fedora still supports 32 bit systems from the last century, when BIOS support for ACPI could be extremely sketchy. So APM can be a useful (working) fallback. Hope this helps, James. -- E-mail: james@ | The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those aprilcottage.co.uk | of my employer, are not necessarily mine, and in fact are | probably not necessary at all... -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
