Comment 37 for bug 267141

On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:16 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 11:58 +0000, vlowther wrote:
> > If you want to look at pulling the upstream package, start with 1.2.2.1
> > -- the previous 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 releases are buggy.
> >
>
> Ah, I'd missed 1.2.2.1, thanks for the heads-up.

I didn't exactly go out of my way to announce it, more sort of mentinoed
it in passing on a thread on the pm-utils mailing list. The actual
announcement will come later tonight.

> I'm not sure whether going for this is the right idea, as opposed
> to back-porting the change quoted above, because I'm not sure
> the impact the auto-quirk change will have.

Well, the whole 1.1 -> 1.2 transition is fairly large, and most of the
current debian patches will need to be rewritten or junked to work with
it. I have been running it on my laptop since I started coding it, but
I don't have much of an idea about who else has been -- feedback on the
pm-utils list is sparse. My real feedback and testing mostly comes from
debian sid, but the latest revisions have not been picked up by sid yet.

The auto-quirk changes are actually not that invasive -- they will not
affect anything when pm-utils is invoked bu HAL, for example, and all
the actual auto-quirk code is contained in the 00auto-quirk hook.

The auto backend stuff is much more invasive, but it was written to make
these sorts of issues harder to create.

The much more invasive thing is the hook reordering, but that will make
suspend/resume seem to be much faster due to most of the time consuming
parts of resume happening after we switch back to X or the active
console.

> Do you have any opinion on this? It's very late in the cycle
> to pull in something that could be potentially disruptive.

Well, it Works For Me (tm).

If people are willing to test things out, 1.2.2.1 will be in debian
experimental shortly, and the .deb itself should install seamlessly into
Ubuntu.

> Thanks,
>
> James
>
--
Victor Lowther
Ubuntu Certified Professional