search for: solismodel

...ried to make sure that the changes did not break support for other models. However, this is not easy, especially if we do not have an easy way to test the changes against all hardware (or emulate in software). Which versions of the driver worked for you, and which ones did not? Also, what value of SolisModel does your UPS return? I CC'd some of the other authors.

...reak support for other models. However, this is not easy, >> especially if we do not have an easy way to test the changes against all >> hardware (or emulate in software). >> >> Which versions of the driver worked for you, and which ones did not? >> Also, what value of SolisModel does your UPS return? I CC'd some of the >> other authors. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20190620/a22fb234/attachment-0001.html>

...t; changes did not break support for other models. However, this is not easy, > especially if we do not have an easy way to test the changes against all > hardware (or emulate in software). > > Which versions of the driver worked for you, and which ones did not? Also, > what value of SolisModel does your UPS return? I CC'd some of the other > authors. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20190620/3cdb5a6f/attachment.html>

On 6/19/19 5:59 AM, Charles Lepple wrote: >> >> “The 62-nut-usbups.rules file looks pretty standard. Do you know if the changes to 42-usb-hd-pm.rules are needed? It seems like none of the USB devices would have the right permissions if 62-nut-usbups.rules isn't sufficient (though this happened in Debian once).” >> >> My means of testing wasn’t the most rigorous,