No, this is not a regression because of bug #89269. I checked by reverting the changes (removed the extra '*'s from power.sh). Additionally, power.sh would have set the apm level to 1 or 255, not 128.
Attached is the udevmonitor log for a suspend/resume cycle.
It looks like there was no add event for sda, that would explain why the rule wasn't executed.
(I don't really know the /devices/... nomenclatura, but there is none of the words sda, scsi, block, sd, hd)
No, this is not a regression because of bug #89269. I checked by reverting the changes (removed the extra '*'s from power.sh). Additionally, power.sh would have set the apm level to 1 or 255, not 128.
Attached is the udevmonitor log for a suspend/resume cycle.
It looks like there was no add event for sda, that would explain why the rule wasn't executed.
(I don't really know the /devices/... nomenclatura, but there is none of the words sda, scsi, block, sd, hd)