Victor Lowther wrote: > How about the following hook-running convention: > > When running hooks in normal sort order, hooks shall run in two phases: > > Phase 1: All hooks that DO NOT begin with two leading digits shall run > first (in no guaranteed order), and the success or failure of these > hooks SHALL be ignored by the pm-utils framework. > > Phase 2: All hooks that DO begin with two leading digits shall run > second (in C-locale lexical sort order), and unexpected failure of these > hooks SHALL prevent pm-utils from suspending or hibernating the box.
- breaking backwards compatibility - how do you tell the user why the machine did not suspend? > This neatly seperates out hooks that are run because an installed > program wants to do something automatically across a suspend/resume (but > that do not work around glitches that may cause suspend/resume to fail), > and hooks that must be run in a specific order to work around glitches > that may cause suspend to fail. Could you please give a specific use case? -- Stefan Seyfried R&D Team Mobile Devices | "Any ideas, John?" SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg | "Well, surrounding them's out." This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
