Re: Fehler bei cpufreq-info

["Petr Šabata" <contyk@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1888 bytes --]

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 #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]