On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:09:11PM +0100, Tako Schotanus wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >Yes, otherwise the support would be incomplete. I'm not yet sure how > >to add this, as some of the packages that are replaced will make the > >mob angry and shout "ATrpms replaces fedora core packages!" ;)
Well, currently no Fedora package is replaced: the mkinitrd scripts are installed seperately. However there might be a better solution (having this in upstream would be great, maybe it will happen sooner or later, since mkinitrd from rawhide already includes support for swsusp1). > >Maybe swsusp2 and friends should get into their own repository class, > >which is not any more on the linear stable-testing-bleeding category. > >We'll see. First we need to make sure swsusp2 really works on most > >boxes. The current packages should be pretty stable, at least for i586, i686 and i686-smp. However, for x86_64 a lot of testing is required (the architectures is still early development). > As I was the one asking for this in the first place I'll make sure to > test this! :-) Thanks. > I do think we should try to convince Matthias to rename the hibernate > rpm though because it conflicts with the hibernate package from the > JPackage repository :-) Hmmm, the hibernate RPM is currently not maintained by me, but by Bernhard Blackham (I just recompile it and make sure it works on Fedora). That issue was already discussed before: http://lists.suspend2.net/lurker/message/20050816.012636.9c836cf9.da.html Maybe I should build an own RPM and rename it to hibernate-script? Regards, Matthias _______________________________________________ atrpms-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
