Suspend2 (Dagobah's packages)
mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Wed Jul 26 23:36:59 BST 2006
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 06:13:29PM -0400, Steven Harms wrote:
> My point was is that there is a reason it is called a technical board, because
> Mr. Garrett does not have veto power,
Absolutely. I have no veto power. If someone can make a sufficiently
convincing technical argument for using suspend2, then the tech board
(and, frankly, me) are likely to have no objection. But it would have to
contain new arguments. It's not as if suspend2 has never been considered
before, or that we've rejected its technical merits out of hand.
> and if he did I am sure it would be
> listed on the page I correctly linked to. Also with respect to support,
> usplash was already given, but doesn't it cost many more man hours in support
> for a totally broke suspend function that has not worked on any computer I have
> tested it on?
It works on every machine I have here. Let me say this again - there is
no technical reason for the in-kernel swsusp to fail on machines where
suspend2 works. The hibernate script generally used with suspend2 does
things differently to our suspend scripts, and in some cases that may
make the difference between success and failure. In some cases, the
opposite may be true. That's something that can be fixed, but it's not
going to be fixed while people repeatedly claim that it's suspend2 that
makes the difference. If you're willing to help work on this bug, then
I'm more than happy to as well.
> Lets be real here, the only thing you guys are really providing
> is stop energy.
Just because you don't like a technical decision, that doesn't mean it's
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
More information about the ubuntu-devel