Hi. On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 23:55 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 07:26:21AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 22:55 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote: > > > Hi, > > > and again, the monthly reminder that we still do not support anything > > > uswsusp with upstream pm-utils. > > > Is there anything blocking the merge of something like that? > > > > This both adds support and changes behaviour by making the new method > > the default. Shouldn't it be two patches? > > strictly speaking: yes. But it only changes behaviour if the userspace suspend > tools are installed. > Those distributions that ship them already have similar patches like this one > (at least the debian package uses pretty much the same patch). > Those that don't do not see a change in behaviour. > > So i think it is a pretty good way of handling this. > We can of course default to the in-kernel suspend also, this would be a > trivial change, but then the whole "autodetect the suspend method" algorithm > is not working anymore and the users cannot simply uninstall the userspace > suspend package to change the method.
Ok. I guess, then, that I should also be submitting something like this for the getting the hibernate script used by default if it's installed. Regards, Nigel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
