On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> wrote:
> James Vega <james...@debian.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> wrote:
>>> My claim is that packages like unattended-upgrades and pm-utils are
>>> completely unrelated to each other, and that a hook in
>>> unattended-upgrades which breaks pm-utils by preventing hibernation is a
>>> critical bug, even if the breakage seems intentional.
>>
>> Is this just a case of an upgrade pulling in a new kernel, which could
>> cause pm-hibernate to disallow a hibernate[0]?
>
> No, that one I can understand. If the kernel changes, then you have to
> reboot before you can hibernate. But that is part of the kernel upgrade
> hooks and not really related to how the kernel is upgraded.
>
>
> This is what I find unacceptable about unattended-upgrades:
>
> case "${1}" in
> hibernate)
> python
> /usr/share/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrade-shutdown
> ;;
>
The bug[0] which was the impetus behind adding that script seems sound
to me. Delaying hibernation to ensure that the system isn't left in an
unbootable state is a fair trade-off.
[0]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/191514
--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <james...@debian.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktink6kkal1fbntpxiz9bpxdrlrg7y_o8rgowx...@mail.gmail.com
