On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 21:45 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote: > 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 don’t 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, Excellent answer. Thanks very much. --Doc -- 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
