On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:45:46PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > Hi, > > Our diff to VBETool 1.0 is virtually non-existent, the only > 'significant' change is the do_get_mode / __get_mode change. > Can't we persuade Matthew to take these changes? than we can just point > at vbetool code and drop it from out repository.
This would be good. Since changes to VBEtool are not too frequent i don't mind updating it in the suspend tree when necessary, but generally it is not a good idea to have it more than once. There is, however also a good thing about having it in the suspend repository: we can hack on it and add / fix things. And we have been pretty good in merging stuff back upstream IMO. > Then maybe I can persuade him to create a vbetool-dev package so > uswsusp can compile against it in debian. You can always do that anyway. Nobody forces anyone to use the in-tree vbetool or libx86, and a patch for a "CONFIG_FOO" to change this without patching is of course very welcome. > But then there is this very important question mark;) > > > - fprintf(stderr, "Function not supported\n"); > > + fprintf(stderr, "Function not supported?\n"); I added this, since it apparently often works, although the bios says "not supported". By adding this question mark, i reduced the confusion of users (no more mails "it works, but i get a 'Function not supported' error !!!1!" for quite some time ;-) -- Stefan Seyfried "Any ideas, John?" "Well, surrounding them's out." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Suspend-devel mailing list Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
