Comment 22 for bug 134238
Revision history for this message
| Bob/Paul (ubuntu-launchpad-bobpaul) wrote | #22 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
7020100
(Get the code!)
>Keeping s2ram in the archive just confuses the issue horribly.
Here's a solution -- put the s2ram binary in it's own package. Have both pm-utils and swsusp dependent on this third package. The pm-suspend script can execute the s2ram binary rather than introduce more bugs by trying to re-implement it.
The other acceptable solution is to leave s2ram in swsusp, since that is part of the swsusp project and just have 2 tools that do the same job. I'm sorry you have trouble receiving bug reports on your fork of s2ram, but when I install swsusp with apt-get I expect to get everything that I would get building from source on my own (minus stuff that's excluded cause it's non-free) just as I expect from any other package I've ever installed with apt-get. Nobody forced you to fork the package, please let me continue to use the original. That's why I use free software in the first place.