On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 08:13 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote: > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 18:16 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 16:17 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > 2008/5/8 Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > In reference to > > > > this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445603 > > > > > > > > Should we be kicking cron a resume time to do the stuff we should have > > > > done whilst suspended? > > > > > > See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=469135 > > > (a user request to run anacron on resume and AC plug). > > > > > > Imho we should only kick anacron on resume if we are plugged on AC. > > > > > > It would probably also make sense to kick anacron on AC plug events. > > > > Seems like a good hook to put in the anacron package. > > ... > > 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.
That's confusing. I'd suggest that either hooks without two leading digits don't get run, or all hooks get run in C-local lexical sort order. I'd also argue that result codes should be consistently treated. Ignore them all or don't ignore them at all. It's not hard to make a script return "I succeeded" if some failure shouldn't result in aborting. I'm not sure what the current behaviour is. Perhaps I could have just said "I agree with Stefan". Nigel _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
