uswsusp or not?

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 09:34:59PM +0100, James Westby wrote:

> 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.

Enabling s2ram just means people will install it, find it works and 
never file bugs so stuff will fail to work out of the box. It's also 
possible for it to trigger bugs that aren't in pm-utils, wasting 
developer time as they have to figure out whether s2ram is installed or 
not.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org