On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:27:37PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Remember, that I'm also part of the upstream team of pm-utils ;-) > The simple reason, why I didn't commit the patch upstream is, that the > way it is implemented is a bit "hackish".
I can kind of see what you are saying, but surely most pm-utils users will experience it as a result of being packaged in their distro? > You have to make a distinction between s2ram (suspend-to-ram) and s2disk > (suspend-to-disk) here. That's true, I haven't discussed s2disk at all. I'm really not sure where suspend-to-disk is going. I've heard some kernel devs describe it as "fundamentally broken", but what we've got at the moment "works", so I haven't looked into it more. > Short answer is, that I won't change the current behaviour. > > If someone installs uswusp, it can be safely expected, that uswsusp > should be used, that's why this patch was added (it's the same > assumption as in Debian system services, like apache, are automatically > activated and started on boot upon installation) > The simplest way actually to not use uswsusp, is to uninstall it. > May I ask, why you have uswsusp installed if you don't want to use it? You have it in Recommends: so almost everyone installing pm-utils will get uswsusp as a result! Would you at least consider demoting it to Suggests:? That means people who have explicitly installed it, as per your argument, will end up using it, but those who don't will get the pm-utils behaving as they might expect (and in my case at least, suspend that works :))? This would seem to be a good compromise. -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
