Hans Meine wrote: > On Monday 18 April 2005 17:19, Dirk Meyer wrote: >> It is done that way. When the shutdown helper has a new wakeup time, >> it is set, even when it is not running shutdown. [...] > Great to hear this, this is more like the solution I had in mind. Maybe I > overlooked the announcement on freevo-devel?! ;-)
I'm not sure I did a real announcement :) >> So when the status is asked, the scheduke changes, at least 30 >> minutes later the wakeup time is set. >> >> Is that what you want? > This sounds like a cool way; of course some signalling (MBUS?) instead of > polling would be even better, no? Yes, it is a prototype right now. We have to see what kind of mbus messages we need. >> Yes, and it is now. But between schedule a new program and shutdown >> you need at least 30 minutes. But I often just call halt. But that is >> also not so good, system shutdown should not work when freevo is busy >> (not idle, busy). > Oh, and I wondered why I did not get too much feedback on my shutdown ideas. > (At least, lately Tanja seems to have tied up with my and Georg's stuff.) > Nice to see that so many of my plans are already put into code! :-) > > This is all 2.0, right? Yes > What are the definitions of "busy"? E.g. recording something > (You mentioned a "list of important programs"?) Yes, when they are running, shutdown is not possible (e.g. wget and mencoder) > Oh, now that I have a little more time than lately, I feel that'll > become Freevo time again! ;-) /me has less time lately. Dischi -- Students nowadays, complaining they only get 5MBs of disk space! In my day we were lucky if we had one file, and that was /dev/null.
pgpbsFGDLDuqm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
