Michael Biebl wrote:
IMHO hibernate is the special case. In a network environment it is
pretty optimistic to expect that a suspended Unix machine could
On a networked server, sure. But on a laptop (over 50% of newly sold
computers are laptops nowadays), I expect suspend/hibernate to work.
I can't speak for ATI graphics cards, but for NVidia's GCs suspend
doesn't work (I tried both "nv" and "nvidia"). Surely it _should_
work, but looking at the market share of NVidia GCs I doubt that
there are so many users of this feature right now.
My suggestion would be to try out suspend & resume in a network
environment. The problem is that all your networked applications
don't expect that your local IP address might change, for example.
This affects ssh, $DISPLAY, etc. And if you try to suspend your laptop
at work, switch it on again at home and hope that everything is working
fine via your firewalled VPN connection to the office, then this is
highly optimistic.
I see that hal is an important part for freedesktop.org. And an
important goal is to give current Windows users an alternative
option to switch to. But I would suggest to consider that a Unix
user (somebody who is using Unix for almost 20 years) might have
different expectations from his desktop system than a Windows user.
My top priority is "networked applications", for example.
We could potentially make it a Recommend instead of a Depend. Most
package
management tools should handle that correctly by now.
If we consider that, then earliest post-lenny, so we can rely on a apt
version, which installs recommends by default. We also should first make
sure, that d-i adds pm-utils to the laptop-task.
Unless that has happened, we shouldn't change the dependency.
I am surely not asking to break anything. The severity of this report
was set to wishlist.
It's not unreasonable to install hal on a server, just rather odd. Hal is
mostly used in very (hardwarewise) dynamic environments, which a
server usually
isn't. Just curious what on your server uses hal?
Wondering as well, especially as you complained about the size of
console-tools (which isn't 5MB btw, but 913k for console-tools + 463k
for libconsole).
See my previous EMail to Sjoerd. The dependency chain is
hal --> pm-utils --> console-tools --> console-common --> console-data
console-data is 3.5MByte. Together with the rest you reach 5.
Honestly, I also found the term "dependency hell", mildly exagerated :-O
Don't take this subject line too serious. I just couldn't resist to use
this obvious wordplay. I didn't mean to offend anybody. My apologies.
Regards
Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
