> If that's the case, are you saying that pm-utils should be left in its
> current, broken state? While uswsusp might break for people who already
> have installed it, mistakenly, there are cases where people cannot
> hibernate without using uswsusp (and hence applying some workaround
> listed above which may or may not break future upgrades).
Sorry, yes; I believe this is a case where the potential for regressions
outweighs the benefits of an SRU. I don't know of any recent hardware that
needs uswsusp to do suspend to disk or suspend to ram, but I do think
there's a risk that users who have uswsusp installed in hardy but don't need
it will see unfavorable behavior changes as a result of this non-standard
suspend mechanism.
So I think this bug is 'wontfix' for hardy.
What hardware do you have that doesn't work with the built-in suspend
support?
** Changed in: pm-utils (Ubuntu Hardy)
Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix
--
pm-utils doesn't detect uswsusp in hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/246053
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
