On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 04:01:20PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 09:53:04 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:29:23PM +0200, Rainer Maier wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > thanks for your info. > > > I removed cpufrequtils, but when I tried to install cpupower by aptitude > > > it didn't know the package. I searched for it, but couldn't find one. > > > Would you perhaps know which packet to install ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Rainer > > > > The cpupower utilities are part of the kernel tree now and > > included in the kernel-tools package on Fedora. I suppose it > > will be something similar in your distribution. > > Sigh. > I guess you have a separate perf package at least? Yes, but technically it's a kernel subpackage. > It would be great if cpupower gets packaged separately for two > reasons: > 1) cpuidle and cpufreq are used by a lot archs nowadays: > ppc, arm, afaik S390 at least they tried,... > I expect the kernel-tools package will only compile on X86? They used to be a separate package before the code moved to kernel. I see the package is build for ppc[64] but not on s390[x]. I have no information on arm[64] at the moment but if there are issues, I'll let you know :) > 2) To avoid confusion like above, so that this tool can easily > be found by people searching for it. This is handled by package manager. Besides the list of of binaries the tools package should also act as a replacement for former cpufrequtils and cpupowerutils packages. > Petr: Would you mind forward this to the maintainer. > I once made sure cpupower compiles on ppc iirc, if someone > runs into arch specific compile (or runtime) issues, please let > me know, this should get fixed then. See above. I'll forward this to kernel owners in Fedora. Regards, Petr
Attachment:
pgpZo1HQOjXWi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
