Re: new pmtools available for testing

[Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>]

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:24 +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 10:13 -0800, Moore, Robert wrote:
> >   
> >> I don't know what's going on here.
> >>
> >> I wrote acpixtract in C in order to get away from Perl and Perl issues.
> >>
> >> I certainly hope that we don't have yet another version of acpixtract.
> >>     
> > Second.
> > Better remove this one soon. People are packing Len's pmtools. As soon
> > as it's spread confusion and maintenance work will grow.
> >   
> There was no confusion between two utilities with the same name, and now you claim to have lost between two with different names, how so?
It's not the two names, it simply makes no sense to provide two
utilities which do the same.

Why do you want to do that?

You have other params, other output, double amount of bug fixing or
feature enhancements work. I only see cons not one single pro argument
to do so.

> pmtools used to be complete in sense it was able to decode that was it 
> has produced, and it will remain complete.
But why not just move/copy Robert's acpixtract, it's already well
tested?
It does not include any APCICA stuff and changing the license shouldn't
be a problem for you...

   Thomas