On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:25:26PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:33:14PM +0200, Tako Schotanus wrote: > > Ok, it has been a while but in the last couple of days I've been > > trying out Matthias Hensler's kernels that include software suspend > > (http://mhensler.de/swsusp/index_en.php) and they work perfectly for > > me. > > > > So... maybe I could convince you to take another look at software > > suspend support for the AT kernel? :-D > > > > The information on the site is quite extensive and there are all > > kinds of ready-to-install rpms and such so hopefully it wouldn't be > > too much work for you to include it into ATrpms. > > Well, "jam with the best", I Cced Matthias, maybe he would be > interested in maintaining kernel and other related patched packages > within ATrpms. I think that would be the best configuration. > > Matthias, would that be something you'd like to do?
First of all, since I am not subscribed to the atrmps-Mailinglist I would like if you could keep me in Cc. Regarding your question: I am aware that there are many 3rd party kernel modules which are not part of the Fedora standard kernel and will never be. In fact I have to compile a lot of stuff for myself with each new kernel. The main problem with software suspend is, that it is not modular (in fact it was for some time, but is not any longer), changes a lot in the kernel (although it had not break much lately) and needs several things to get it running (initrd patching, changes in the kernel commandline and several userspace stuff). While swsusp1 is part of the vanilla kernel since 2.6, it is disabled in the Fedora standard kernels (and will be at least for FC3 and FC4). Currently there are some changes regarding this, as rawhide has swsusp1 enabled kernels since August 2005 and some support in recent mkinitrd-packages. However, swsusp2 seems to be much more stable today and is working to get it integrated into the vanilla kernel tree. I suppose that will take some time, and won't likely to show up in the Fedora kernel before FC6. At the moment I try my best to provide stable and working kernels for FC3, FC4 and rawhide, together with a set of needed packages to make setup easier (for most systems it is currently enough to install the swsusp2 enabled kernel RPM, with the hibernate, userui and swsusp2-mkinitrd RPMs and modify the kernel commandline). However, I do not have a build system at the moment which would me allow to build anything besides i686 packages. For all other architectures, as well for features like Xen-support (not sure if anyone ever tested this with swsusp2), the people are on the own to rebuild the RPMs. I would happy to see support for swsusp2-kernels in ATrpms, but that would need some coordination. As explained above I do not see any other possiblity as to spin seperate kernel RPMs at the moment. What I can do, is to rebuild the packages from ATrpms for my kernel versions (at least for i686-up) and either provide them on my page, or directly at ATrpms, whatever the best solution here is. That would lead to the question about the different architectures. Most users are happy with i686-up at the moment, but since there a lot of notebooks with hyper threading and 64bit it could make sense to provide i686-smp, x86_64 and x86_64-smp as well (I am not totally sure about the status of SMP and 64bit, but there were some effords to get it work for the upcoming 2.2 release of swsusp2). I should be able to build everything, including the ATrpms kernel modules, for i686, but would need help for all the rest. I am open for suggestions, so just let me know what you think and how it could be done. Regards, Matthias
pgpmE5plxbXHU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ atrpms-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
