On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2009/11/26 Dan Nicholson :
> > I think if this is really the way to go, then shell is not the right
> > tool for the job at runtime. You could write a trivial C program to
> > parse that out and spit out the quirks on stdout for pm-utils to
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Victor Lowther
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Martin Pitt
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Victor,
> >>
> >> sorry for the late response; conference and all that..
> >>
> >> Victor Lowther [2009-11-
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2009/11/26 Dan Nicholson :
>> I think if this is really the way to go, then shell is not the right
>> tool for the job at runtime. You could write a trivial C program to
>> parse that out and spit out the quirks on stdout for pm-utils to use
2009/11/26 Dan Nicholson :
> I think if this is really the way to go, then shell is not the right
> tool for the job at runtime. You could write a trivial C program to
> parse that out and spit out the quirks on stdout for pm-utils to use.
> Bash is great, but it is not the right tool for all jobs.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
>>
>> Hello Victor,
>>
>> sorry for the late response; conference and all that..
>>
>> Victor Lowther [2009-11-15 21:59 -0600]:
>> > And now, a version that actaully works. With a bit of
