On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:25:20AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure what you mean with "extending it to work with pm-utils",
but I'd like to keep rtcwake(8) very simple, void possible complexity
and any external dependencies. It's low-level command that is
designed for "advanced users", ..., I guess people normally use
things like gnome-power-manager or so.
It would be nice to add some information about pm-util to rtcwake.8
(to section NOTES or SEE ALSO).
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
