On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:12 +0000, James Westby wrote: > Hi, > > I think your patch is a sensible one. If we know s2ram isn't going > to be available we shouldn't bother checking for it. > > I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet, but I think it may be a > little too late for the release. I do however think it makes a reasonable > candidate for an SRU. > > I'm subscribing the sponsors for main so that someone appropriate can > review the change. > > Thanks, > > James > > > It does break it for those that have recompiled uswsusp to have > an s2ram binary, but they will be an even smaller minority. > > > ** Changed in: pm-utils (Ubuntu) > Importance: Undecided => Low > Status: New => Confirmed > While we know that s2ram isn't going to be available by default, I think we shouldn't break it for those who do have s2ram, or it would be a regression for them. As of now this patch doesn't carry any negative effects to either party, i.e. it uses s2ram if present, and uses kernel if s2ram isn't. -- Chow Loong Jin
-- [Intrepid] Suspend fails when telling pm-utils to use uswsusp https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/287374 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
