Certainly makes sense. See if someone else is interested and motivated to work on it. :v) Mark D. Studebaker wrote: > I'd like to solicit volunteers to create a 2.6-compatible libsensors > right away. I don't think we can wait until 2.6.0 comes out to get started. > Anybody up for it? Can we put a request on our web page? > What do you guys think? > > > Greg KH wrote: > >> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:12:08AM -0700, Philip Pokorny wrote: >> >>> I'm worried about the libsensors implementation for 2.5/2.6. The >>> switch to sysfs will mean a radical change to the libsensors >>> implementation. This may be a good time to address a number of >>> issues (duplicated code in libsensors and prog/sensors, inflexible >>> formating, integration of sensord/rrdb, etc) if we have to do a major >>> re-write of the libsensors and sensors code. Has anyone given any >>> thought to this? >> >> >> >> I've looked at this, and agree, a radical change to the libsensors >> implementation seems to be in order. I haven't spent any serious time >> yet on this, but will have the time after 2.6.0 comes out. >> >
