Re: Help with uswsusp
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Rodolfo kix Garcia <email@example.com> wrote:
> The suspend-utils (common name) is created and maintained by Rafael and
> Pavel. They are working now in the kernel, in the power management.
> The software is in a very stable versión, but the problem is the database. A
> new machine, new entry in the database. For example, some bugs of uswsusp
> are because this machines are not in the database.
> Now I am trying to maintain the database (from 8 months ago), and the
> project was moved from sourceforge to git.kernel.org, but there is not a new
> version in the webpage. The database is important because it has the flags
> for the suspend to ram, an example:
> "Acer *", "Aspire 5100 *", "", "", VBE_SAVE|PCI_SAVE|S3_MODE,
> From the 0.8 version to 0.9 has some important bugs solved in the code and
> many new machines were added.
As Michael said maintaining a database outside of the kernel is a hard
work. I am wondering how well the coverage across various kernel
release, too. And if this database has to be updated on basis of new
machines, it doesn't seem a good idea to bound it to uswsusp release,
as the industry creates lots of new machines every few quarter.
> About the question, I am not sure if Rafael will release a new version 0.9
> to sourceforge, but the uswsusp debian package is very old, has many bugs
> and should be upgraded. I am not sure the future of this package if it is
> not upgraded.
If the tag v0.9 from git doesn't mean to make the final release
tarball, which you should check with Rafael, then you should change
the package version to reflect this, for example 0.9~git20090922-1.
>>> * License : GNU GPL
>>> * Section : admin
>>> The package can be found on my server, probably I will move it to
>>> - URL: http://www.kix.es/src/suspend-utils/debian/
>> The package is not complete, missing uswsusp_0.9-0.0.debian.tar.gz
> I uploaded it, sorry.
1. The version is still wrong. Generally the version has two parts,
the upstream version and debian revision. Your package contains new
upstream release so the debian revision should start from 1. Please
check the debian-policy document.
2. You are not listed as the package maintainer; if you'd like to
adopt the package then go through the usual procedure
Other problems could be discussed later.