uswsusp or not?
jw+debian at jameswestby.net
Thu Oct 9 21:34:59 BST 2008
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 14:27 +0100, James Westby wrote:
> I think just downgrading uswsusp from Recommends to Suggests is
> the way to go, but I have little experience here, so I want
> to check that I am not missing something.
After some more discussion in the bug it seems like the
best thing to do is remove Debian's "auto" patch from the package,
meaning that the user will only get uswsusp if they explicitly enable
it. We will add a file to /etc/pm/config.d/ showing how to do this.
This should mean that the default works well for Intrepid users again,
whether they have uswsusp installed or not.
Upstream has just released a new version with a better version
of "auto" that chooses a method for suspend/hibernate/hybrid as
needed. We will get this in Jaunty. Again, I don't think we want
to enable "auto" otherwise we will just hit the same problems
again. I just checked the code and it should still work
nicely to just change the default from "auto" to "kernel", and
the user can override as they like.
This opens up the possibility that we can again make uswsusp
fans happy by enabling s2ram, as they would be able to
choose to use it without it impacting most users. Would anyone
be against doing this? We could add an apport hook to
pm-utils (and gnome-power-manager and others?) to report the
user's choice of module if people were worried about the
choice of suspend method leading to confusion in bug reports.
It would be possible to do this for Intrepid, but it may late
to do that. It would obviously be easily doable for Jaunty.
More information about the ubuntu-devel