Comment 12 for bug 246053

Hash: SHA1

Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've updated the bug description to make it clear that there *is*
> regression potential here. Indeed, the regression potential may be very
> broad, and is difficult to quantify at all, precisely because such a bug
> would have prevented testing in hardy (or, it appears, in gutsy) to
> confirm that uswsusp works.
> As such, I'm concerned that this may not be appropriate material for an
> SRU at all.
If that's the case, are you saying that pm-utils should be left in its current, broken state? While
uswsusp might break for people who already have installed it, mistakenly, there are cases where
people cannot hibernate without using uswsusp (and hence applying some workaround listed above which
may or may not break future upgrades). Are you going to leave it like that, instead of getting the
people who have already, mistakenly installed uswsusp to uninstall uswsusp?

Another thing is that if this issue is left as it is, and users for whom uswsusp is broken upgrade
to Intrepid, where there's a new version of pm-utils which correctly utilizes uswsusp, then it's
going to get a whole lot of bug reports and/or complaints/negative blog/forum posts saying that
"Intrepid broke my hibernate!"

- --
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -