On Sunday 30 July 2006 23:13, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Rohan Dhruva schrieb: > > Most probably your problem is related to suspend2 itself and not the > > beyond kernel patchset. A better place, imo, to ask would be the > > suspend2 mailing lists. > > > > http://suspend2.net/lists > > No, ask on the (new) beyond bugtracker. I recently compared suspend2 > stability between a vanilla+suspend2 kernel and a beyond kernel, and beyond > lost (indeed, every beyond version I used was unusable with suspend2). > I am planning to maintain a vanilla kernel with suspend2 patches in the > future, see the forums for discussion about that > (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=23518).
Yeah, 2.6.17-beyond2x was completely screwed up for suspend as suspend didnt really like dynticks, however I spent some lengthy time getting it working in beyond3 and have yet to have any complaints apart from that it requires mkinitcpio from testing. Not that I saw any complaints from you either though before that, you say you tested beyond and it didnt work - and you didnt file a bug, yet you managed to make a suspend2 package in [community] -- community isnt the bug tracker mate. beyond3 should be just as stable for suspend as any vanilla based option now. James _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
