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 m
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 o
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
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 so
ix moreinfo unreproducible fixed potato woody sid
help security upstream pending sarge sarge-ignore experimental d-i confirmed
ipv6 lfs fixed-in-experimental fixed-upstream l10n etch etch-ignore lenny
lenny-ignore.
Bug#500794: uswsusp - s2ram does not follow kernel
There were no tags set.
Tags added:
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,
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: impor
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 it
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 littl
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
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 s
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 sa
12 matches
Mail list logo
