Comment 22 for bug 267141

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

pakraticus wrote:
> People use uswsusp either because
> 1) It's legacy on a box that was upgraded from hardy to intrepid where
> uswsusp was installed for whatever reason.
> (How I encountered this).
> 2) They followed feisty or gutsy vintage instructions.
> 3) Their hardware does not work properly with the kernel sleep and hibernate
> modules for pm-utils.
4) hibernate/resume takes a long time using pm-utils, because it doesn't involve compression

> #1 and #2 could probably withstand applying the rolled up newspaper
> treatment to the user.
Regarding #1, actually Hardy doesn't have uswsusp installed by default.

> #3 indicates attempting to conceal a defect in the pm-utils package
> and MAYBE it's worthwhile to report the defect in pm-utils.
Perhaps so, but until pm-utils uses compression for hibernation, it's not going to get fixed.

> Right now the crux of the pm-utils defect is that it assumes that the
> module for hibernate should also be the module for sleep.
> On debian this makes sense as uswsusp provides both hibernate and sleep.
> This is a side effect of the revision of the pm-utils code to be more
> modular.
> Upstream should be notified of the problem in logic prior to distributing
> a fix for intrepid.
> (I apologize for switching between sleep and suspend... I'm trying to
> maintain the same inconsistancy as the pm-utils modules).
I say fix it, test it, and submit the patch upstream at the same time. On Ubuntu this whole issue
comes about from two things, one is the assumption that s2disk comes with s2ram, the other is the
actions of the one who came up with the brilliant idea of disabling s2ram.

>> And also, I agree that if we don't have s2ram even built in the uswsusp package, then we should at
>> least have a separate package with just s2ram in it.
>
> Assuming s2ram is the right solution.
> At this point in the game, intrepid is alpha. The prescribed configuration
> is pm-utils without uswsusp. If pm-utils fails on suspend or hibernate
> with uswsusp on your hardware, the ubuntu developers need to know.
This point does not make the assumption that s2ram is the right solution. This is about giving the
user a choice. Now that uswsusp is only in Suggests and not in Recommends, apt-get autoremove should
get rid of it right? I remember uswsusp wasn't installed in my Hardy installation, so users who
upgrade from Hardy to Intrepid won't have a problem if we make sure the upgrade process doesn't
install pm-utils.

> If you installed uswsusp to resolve a hibernate problem and uswsusp
> did, maybe the fix is to change the logic in pm-utils instead of
> bringing back s2ram.
> If the logic on pm-utils is improved to separate the configured module
> for sleep from module for hibernate, the long term solution might be for
> pm-utils to provide suspend and hibernate blacklists, uswsusp to provide
> suspend and hibernate blacklists, and tuxonice to provide suspend and
> hibernate blacklists and for pm-is-supported to provide a --verbose
> or --recommends flag that indicates which module is being used for
> suspend, hibernate, or suspend-hybrid, whether it was hard set
> or determined from absence from blacklists, and if it's blacklisted
> the next priority package.
>
Sounds good, but it definitely won't get implemented in time for Intrepid, and leaving pm-utils
broken in Intrepid is not a good idea. We need a short term solution as well, and I don't think
removing uswsusp support from pm-utils completely is a good idea.

- --
Hyperair
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFI3dFj4LFcUo8CpBERAgscAKCAa6PE8MyprGdnJM4JjF7ZcQV5SwCgzMVu
l3SoPx3CeqGO7JwHjRl9WCM=
=V39+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----