[Pm-utils] Why do we still ship hal-system-power-pmu / PMU support suboptimal in pm-utils

[Till Maas]

On Di Dezember 4 2007, Sjoerd Simons wrote:

> But looking at the current reality. Debian and Suse's pm-utils are heavily
> patched to support uswsusp. Afaik the Ubuntu development branch currently
> uses Debians version. Looking at Doug's comment, gentoo also doesn't use a
> vanilla pm-utils (or maybe not at all, dunno). So yeah, of the major
> distros only fedora/RH use a vanilla pm-utils..

Fedora also patches pm-utils, everyone needs to use at least one patch imho. 
There are 5 more patches in Fedora and some bug entries in Fedora Bugzilla 
that require even more patches.

> It would good to see some rationale from people more knowledgable in the
> suspend area then myself, why they choose to go a specific way. And see if
> we can get some fresh air into pm-utils :)
>
>   Sjoerd
> (On a related note, can it please switch from CVS to something people in
> this century actually like to use :))

I would help forking pm-utils, but I do not dare to do this by myself. I asked 
for cvs commit access to help upstream, but nobody cared / read my mail or 
bugzilla entry, so forking seems to be the only sane way. Unless you want to 
abandon pm-utils, of course.

Regards,
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/attachments/20071204/8ea22314/attachment.pgp