On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:40:51PM +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri February 8 2008, Victor Lowther wrote: > > > I would not add it as an intergal part of pm-utils. tuxonice, > > for example, can be configured to hibernate/resume without touching a > > swap partition or a swap file. > > Iirc did you create some patches that separte the checks for the different > sleep methods for the different backends.
I did. They just check to see if the kernel supports those methods, not any other prerequisite. I do not think that writing a "hibernate will work" vs. a "hibernate is supported" function is worth the effort. I don't have a problem with making it really easy for someone else to write such a function, though. > > Well, I would not have pm-is-supported check for the presence of an > > available swap partition -- a usage scenario that would break involves > > someone who normally runs without swap, and mounts the swap partition just > > for hibernate > > How does this break? As soon as someone activates a swap partition, the > output > of pm-is-supported would change. And in case it is not activated, hibernation > would fail anyways. Unless he uses a different sleep-backend than the kernel > of course. Because when pm-is-supported is doing the Right Thing right now. What it sounds like the bug is asking for is a pm-sleep-will-probably-work command, which would be a great deal harder to implement. > Regards, > Till > -- Victor Lowther Ubuntu Certified Professional _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
