Bastian Blank schreef:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 11:39:15PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
Op Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:55:30 +0200
schreef Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:54:33AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
I looked at some numbers. We currently have +/- 400 machines listed,
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 11:39:15PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
Op Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:55:30 +0200
schreef Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:54:33AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
Do you have a number which amount of machines have problems?
The number of machines
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:54:33AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
First of all, if you know what command-line arguments you need to suspend
you can use those with --force. If you use hal (via gnome-power-manager)
you can create a .fdi file that will by-pass the white-list.
This is no scalable
Op Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:55:30 +0200
schreef Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:54:33AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
First of all, if you know what command-line arguments you need to
suspend you can use those with --force. If you use hal (via
gnome-power-manager) you
Quoting Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It is unusable on an unknown amount of machines. I would have no problem
with that if it is only installed on request, but it is included in the
laptop task and therefor a standard package.
So?
That still makes a good argument for Severity:
severity 500794 whishlist
tags 500794 +willnotfix
thanks
First of all, if you know what command-line arguments you need to suspend
you can use those with --force. If you use hal (via gnome-power-manager)
you can create a .fdi file that will by-pass the white-list.
Bastian Blank schreef:
On Wed,
Package: uswsusp
Version: 0.8-1.1
Severity: grave
s2ram ignores if the kernel say it supports suspend-to-ram and insist on
a white list. As using s2ram is currently the default method, this is
unacceptable. The kernel know itself if it can suspend a machine.
Bastian
--
It is more rational to
Quoting Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Package: uswsusp
Version: 0.8-1.1
Severity: grave
s2ram ignores if the kernel say it supports suspend-to-ram and insist on
a white list. As using s2ram is currently the default method, this is
unacceptable. The kernel know itself if it can suspend
On 2008-10-01 15:53 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
Package: uswsusp
Version: 0.8-1.1
Severity: grave
s2ram ignores if the kernel say it supports suspend-to-ram and insist on
a white list. As using s2ram is currently the default method, this is
unacceptable. The kernel know itself if it can
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:54:54PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
But it does not know whether the machine will come up again, and even if
that's the case, the screen may remain blank forever. Such is the case
on my desktop. :-(
Each kernel driver is allowed to veto suspension.
There's little
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:23:50PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
s2ram ignores if the kernel say it supports suspend-to-ram and insist on
a white list. As using s2ram is currently the default method, this is
unacceptable. The kernel know itself
11 matches
Mail list logo
