On 10/02/2018 08:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Di, 02.10.18 14:34, Hans de Goede (hdegoede(a)redhat.com) wrote:
> Ok fair enough. Keeping it easy for users to try out hibernate is
> a valid argument.
This is just weird. Why would GNOME expose a button to regular user
that reads "hey, press me, please use this feature, but it's not going
to work, and nobody is going to help you with it or fix bugs,
kthxbye". That's just awful UI.
Quite frankly, this is quite ridiculous. GNOME is not the only user of
this, we shouldn't expose crap that doesn't work in the UI, regardless
what the UI looks like. GNOME has every right to assume that what the
underlying layers advertise works. And when it doesn't then the
underlying layers should stop advertising this.
If the kernel folks apprently are not willing to clean this up, nor
stop advertising its availability, then I guess we can mask this out
in the systemd RPM, but what a mess, now systemd.rpm suddenly becomes
the dumping ground for policy decisions when kernel code is good
enough and when it isn't, and when the kernel maintainers want to
support something or not.
I think we're stuck between two competing goals of Fedora: give users
as many features as possible vs. having those features be stable.
In the kernel we've tended to err on the side of allowing as many
options as possible and just not giving support.
The big hammer of disabling hibernation doesn't differentiate between
cases where hibernate is fundamentally broken and may never work
(hardware or firmware issues) vs. might just need some quirks.
Is there more information the kernel could expose to allow a
more informed decision about whether we should allow hibernate as
an option to the user?