[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: testing upgrade with some sid: Unwanted Suspend to Ram



On Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:55:40 PM CEST you wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:00:42 PM CEST you wrote:
> > I just did a "Aptitude GUI" testing upgrade (aptitude -R -t stretch);
> > Then I used command line:
> > aptitude search -F"%p; %v; %V; %d" -t sid
> > '?installed(?maintainer(debian-qt- kde))'|egrep 5.7|egrep
> > '5.6|5.7.0'|less -i (goal here is empty output) to see what packages I
> > should also upgrade from sid
> > (Which I did after recommendations I've seen on this list);
> > which I've upgraded using the same GUI way (aptitude -R -t sid).
> > I had one glitch with "qml-module-qtmultimedia (5.6.1-2 and others)".
> > 
> > After reboot I can't see anything unusual.
> 
> Then After a While the screen got locked: it didn't seem unusual at the time
> even though the duration after which it occurred was unusually short... Then
> when I came back to my computer it was in a suspend to ram condition. The
> computer is a closed lid laptop with external monitor and of course
> keyboard...
> It is always on AC power.
> I join a screenshot of the relevant settings screen that shows, I believe,
> that everything is as it should be. And that therefore the computer
> shouldn't have behaved as it did.
> Maybe it won't happen again.

It did happen again. So what I did is tick then untick the "on AC power" 
suspend session thing in settings/power management before clicking to apply.

I'll see what comes from it.

(I've got lock screen automatically after 60 min set in Desktop Behavior - 
Screen locking timeout...
There is some redundancy in settings there.
Also I wonder if the right thing to do wouldn't be to tick the suspend session 
thing in power management and specifying that the thing to do would then be to 
just lock the screen; maybe if it's just not ticked there is a default 
behavior consisting in suspend to ram...
All that pure speculations I'm afraid.)

> 
> > Chris



Reply to: