On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 21:40 -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On 13/11/10 06:51 AM, Axel Beckert wrote: > > So please revert that change back so that eeepc-acpi-scripts handles the > > suspend itself again. The current situation is unusable and you just > > dropped a very well working feature of eeepc-acpi-scripts. Will > > downgrade eeepc-acpi-scripts to 1.1.10 for now. > > It's unlikely we will do this. We took a critical look at all of the > various things eeepc-acpi-scripts was handling and had to decide where > we overlapped (and what's worse, conflicted*) with more standard ways of > doing things to cut the custom code from eeepc-acpi-scripts and use the > standard approach instead. > > If acpi-support alone doesn't work for you with the Squeeze kernel, then > this bug probably belongs on acpi-support instead. [...]
Well, first Axel should check that the kernel itself does the right
thing:
echo mem > /sys/power/state
I agree with Ben's judgement that eeepc-acpi-scripts should be
minimised, though I would go further and say that ACPI quirks should
generally be handled in the kernel.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Debian-eeepc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-eeepc-devel
