Bug#375217: When you will upload it?
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:48:46 -0300
Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> wrote:
> Tim Dijkstra <tim@famdijkstra.org> writes:
>
> > I've fixed most of the comments I got so far about the package,
> > among them the name; I changed it to uswsusp.
>
> Good. Might you should rename the bug against it package name too.
I thought I did that ... duh... I retitled if from 'ITP: muswsusp' to
'ITP: muswsusp' ...
> > The two things on the wish list are a debconf prompt for the
> > swap-partition to use and sorting out libssl license issue. For now
> > I choose to compile without it.
>
> Good. debconf is a good thing to do before upload to unstable
> otherwise you'll need to deal with upgrades.
OK then the upload will have to wait a bit.
> Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu> writes:
>
> > Maybe it's better to leave the name as it is and only provide a
> > convience symlink (s2disk->suspend) or convince upstream to choose a
> > better name.
>
> This looks the best thing to do. I think that upstream need to be
> aware of possible confusion from user POV.
I'll contact upstream, if have some more changes anyway. I do think
that even if they don't agree I'll stick with s2disk.
Suspend is a really lousy name and it's better to avoid it for several
reasons:
1) bash has a build in command that's called like that.
2) The rest of the world thinks suspend == s2ram not s2disk. In fact
most people call it hibernate, unfortunately there's already a package
that provides that name.
3) I changed the binary to behave differently if it is called as s2both.
That way we do not have to keep two different configuration files (one
for suspend to both and two suspend to disk) and all the hassle (and
danger) that comes with keeping them in sync.
About confusion: I added some words in README.Debian to explain.
I also wrote manpages (there is no suspend --help), they mention
s2disk.
grts Tim
Reply to: