[Pm-utils] Some thoughts about some of the hooks

[Peter Jones]

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 17:18 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:

> > - shouldn't the "session daemons" actually do this? Send a "going to suspend"
> >   signal which NM (and others) will listen to?
> 
> gnome-power-manager currently does this, but it NetworkManager doesn't
> mind being asked twice.

Hrm.  Actually, that may be a source of some bugs.  Not 100% sure
though, let me think about it some more.

But if it is or not, pm hooks should be doing this, not g-p-m, because
(at least according to plan) it will be common to use NM independently
of the desktop.

> > 90clock:
> > - setting the hwclock before suspend is only needed if your cmos clock runs
> >   badly wrong. If you do not have ntpd running (no network, notebook), then
> >   it might make things even worse. Resetting system time after resume from
> >   the cmos clock is not needed, the kernel does this already.
> >   (We had this option in powersaved since up to 2.6.7(?) the kernel did not
> >   do this correctly. After the kernel was fixed, we set the default to "off".
> >   I never had a bugreport about it ever since, so i wanted to remove it from
> >   powersaved anyway).
> 
> I know nothing about this one. Peter?

It's mostly crackrock, but what really needs to happen is for ntpd to
join the modern world.  Then we throw this out entirely.

-- 
  Peter