Arch Linux

acpixtract is part of the package iasl which conflicts with acpidump.

Except renaming acpidump from linux to avoid conflict with iasl acpidump and get acpixtract from this package.

Could you to report your issue upstream.

James? Did you report it upstream? Do you have a link?

Sorry - I'm confused. Comparing the file lists for iasl and acpidump, I see:

iasl 20140926-1
usr/bin/acpibin
usr/bin/acpidump
usr/bin/acpiexamples
usr/bin/acpiexec
usr/bin/acpihelp
usr/bin/acpinames
usr/bin/acpisrc
usr/bin/acpixtract
usr/bin/iasl
usr/share/
usr/share/licenses/
usr/share/licenses/iasl/
usr/share/licenses/iasl/LICENSE

from "acpica.org", "The ACPI Component Architecture (ACPICA) project", and

acpidump 3.19-1
usr/bin/acpidump
usr/share/
usr/share/man/
usr/share/man/man8/
usr/share/man/man8/acpidump.8.gz

where also, acpidump is part of a "split" package, generated from the entire linux kernel source file, and includes:
'acpidump'
'cgroup_event_listener'
'cpupower'
'libtraceevent'
'linux-tools-meta'
'perf'
'tmon'
'usbip'
'x86_energy_perf_policy'

which are the "linux-tools" group, from the linux kernel "tools" subdirectory. I also see that both source directories include a "tools/acpidump/" subdirectory, holding different files with the exact same file names for building acpidump:

acpidump.h
apdump.c
apfiles.c
apmain.c

The acpica.org files are quite a bit bigger than the kernel.org versions, mostly because of a longer copyright and license. Both sets of files are copyright Intel Corp. and seem similar, except that the kernel.org versions have all the function names in lower case and have the GNU GPL. The acpica.org files have "Copyright (c) 1999 - 2014, Intel Corp.", while the kernel.org files have "Copyright (C) 2000 - 2014, Intel Corp." In particular, the acpica.org package provide neither man pages nor documentation of any kind.

So then, which version of "acpidump", do you suppose, is the "correct" version? Which upstream group should be notified, and about what exactly should they be informed? And what would motivate either group to make changes to their packaging or file names?

Looking again at the "tools" list for both packages, the acpica.org "source/tools/" subdirectory includes:
acpibin
acpidump
acpiexec
acpihelp
acpinames
acpisrc
acpixtract
examples

while the Arch "kernel-tools" group from kernel.org includes:
acpidump
cgroup_event_listener
cpupower
libtraceevent
perf
tmon
usbip
x86_energy_perf_policy

It appears to me that the iasl package is very "acpi" oriented, while linux-tools package is much more general. On the other hand, the iasl package provides no documentation, while the linux-tools group provides man pages, in particular, for acpidump.

Reading at the acpica.org Linux Support page, at https://acpica.org/downloads/linux, I see:
---
Starting with the Linux kernel version 2.4, ACPICA is embedded within the Linux kernel.
There is no Linux-specific ACPICA source code package. Instead, new ACPICA code is released to Linux by the ACPICA team via the following procedure:

The Linux version of ACPICA is created from the UNIX release package -- the code is converted to Linux format via an ACPICA utility (AcpiSrc) and lindent.
Individual patches are created, merged with the current Linux source tree, and released to Linux.

The Linux versions of the user-space ACPICA utilities (iASL, AcpiExec, AcpiXtract, etc.) can be built from the UNIX ACPICA source code package, found at the UNIX Source Code page: UNIX Source Code Packages
---

I hesitate to attempt tracking-down and then persuading the linux kernel "tools" maintainer to rename the "acpidump" binary, which is presumably the same binary as in the iasl package. I also hesitate attempting to persuade acpica.org to rename their "acpidump" binary, especially since they are the original provider of the source.

I have submitted an "Issues" report for the acpica.org source:
"Missing man pages in acpica documentation."
https://github.com/acpica/acpica/issues/62

Given the circumstances, though, it seems to me that the binary conflict must be resolved by Arch, rather than by acpica.org or by linux.org. What would make more sense to me is to: 1) remove the acpidump binary from the Arch "acpidump" package, 2) retain the acpidump man page in the "acpidump" package, and 3) have the "acpidump" package depend upon the "iasl" package. Later, if acpica.org concedes to rounding-up the man pages, unless there is some material difference between the two versions of acpidump, acpidump should be removed from the linux-tools group.

What do you think?


James

I think I will remove acpidump from linux-tools and rely on acpidump from iasl.