On Monday 26 January 2009 08:08:54 Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 26, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > i was pointing out your statement that rtcwake is currently not useful is > > clearly false. power management can be done just fine without requiring > > extraneous packages such as pm-utils and all the fun HAL stuff. > > Yes. Now that we are done nitpicking, can we discuss about how to fix > rtcwake to work on normal systems where pm-utils is being used? i wasnt nitpicking. it seemed to me that you wanted to take rtcwake in the direction of not supporting suspend at all and making people do it other ways (i.e. requiring pm-utils). by pointing out that rtcwake does actually work as originally intended (i.e. not requiring external packages), we can agree that dropping the code in question isnt going to happen. extending it to work with pm-utils for the cases where people want that is fine of course. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
