Crippling Gnome-power-manager, Why!

[Jeremy Katz]

On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 07:52 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On this tangent, note that with Luke's super spiffy update metadata
> > integration into repomd, we're including a flag that says "this update
> > needs a reboot".
> 
> That's nice... are you saying you are going to make pirut "this needs
> a reboot" aware and have pirut reboot the system or is this just going
> to be a notification hint?

Well, we can't just reboot the system out from under you.  But if you've
been testing updating using pup, you've noticed the nice little dialog
you get on update sets which include a kernel that asks if you want to
reboot[1]

> I had another thought last night... what is upstream's thoughts about
> suspend/no-shutdown in the menus for livecd gnome desktops? Does
> suspend in the menus make any sense at all for livecd situations? 
> Does it make sense to have different menu structure for a livecd
> versus a full install on the same hardware?

I think a mountain is being made out of a mole hill here.  A suggestion
was made[2] and it was tried.  Some UI suggestions work well in
practice, some don't.  As it turns out, the only way to generally find
out with UI changes is to try them and see

Jeremy

[1] There's also a little icon in the package list to help cue the fact
that you'll be suggested to reboot after applying the update.  Right
now, it's using a hard-coded list of packages... once the update
metadata is firmed up, it'll use that instead

[2] And contrary to Jesse's assertion, it's not really "upstream" at
this point -- upstream GNOME isn't shipping g-p-m in 2.14 although it
will probably be included for 2.16.  There was discussion there about
this being a "better" UI, but given all of the reasons people have
outlined, it will probably be chalked up to an experiment which didn't
work out for this best this time