[Bug 10217] New: Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
65 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] New: Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

            Bug ID: 10217
           Summary: Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers
    Classification: Xfce
           Product: Xfce4-session
           Version: Unspecified
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: Medium
         Component: General
          Assignee: [hidden email]
          Reporter: [hidden email]
        QA Contact: [hidden email]
                CC: [hidden email], [hidden email]

Created attachment 5088
  --> https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5088&action=edit
Removes gnome-screensaver, adds mate-screensaver, cinnamon-screensaver, i3lock

Xflock4 knows about gnome-screensaver which is dead after GNOME 3.8 but doesn't
about forks: mate-screensaver and cinnamon-screensaver.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

[hidden email] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]
            Version|Unspecified                 |4.10.1

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #1 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
Well, I have tried to feature new ones at
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3770 Proposed xflock4 there tries to
find out, if a screensaver daemon is *running*. What are the daemons for those
lockers you presented?

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #2 from [hidden email] ---
@Jarno Suni, mate-screensaver, cinnamon-screensaver; i3lock has not got any.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

liquider <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #3 from liquider <[hidden email]> ---
If i3lock gets added (which it should), how about we invoke it

   i3lock -c 000000

for a black screen. Thanks.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #4 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
I think black screen is good idea. I would invoke it

 i3lock --dpms --color=000000

since --dpms enables display power control. (If you move mouse to disable
display power save mode, you can re-enable it by pressing Esc.)

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Attachment #5359|                            |review+
              Flags|                            |

--- Comment #5 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
Created attachment 5359
  --> https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5359&action=edit
Complete rewrite of xflock4 that aims to be more reliable and support more
screen savers and lockers.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

review granted: [Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers : [Attachment 5359] Complete rewrite of xflock4 that aims to be more reliable and support more screen savers and lockers.

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> has granted  review:
Bug 10217: Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

Attachment 5359: Complete rewrite of xflock4 that aims to be more reliable and
support more screen savers and lockers.
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5359&action=edit
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #6 from liquider <[hidden email]> ---
Why not have i3lock at the same place as other minimal lockers (xlock, slock,
...)? Isn't `xset dpms force off` the same as running i3lock with --dpms ?

This patch closes several bugs, I assume?

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #7 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
Well, I think it is better to use i3lock's forking feature, because I suppose
error handling works better in the script that way, and the Esc trick mentioned
in comment 4 works only then. The other minimal lockers do not support forking.

Yes, it is supposed to close several bugs.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #8 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
@liquider, see this comment (and the bug report) for the the bugs:
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3770#c49

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #9 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
On the other hand, when the display is black, i3lock does not show any user
interface in the beginning. White screen may help to identify the state of the
system. Not a big deal anyway, IMO.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #10 from liquider <[hidden email]> ---
What user interface should white i3lock show? When I run it, it's solid color
(only) either way.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #11 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
A dark image displaying a hint that desktop is locked and can be unlocked by
typing the password of given user.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #12 from liquider <[hidden email]> ---
Isn't it likely that's something you have configured elsewhere?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=i3lock

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #13 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
Created attachment 5370
  --> https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5370&action=edit
A user friendly way to call i3lock; uses xrandr and imagemagick. The hint
should be displayed on every monitor of the desktop.

I don't know what you mean. If you call i3lock like the attached script, you
get some visible hint after you move mouse pointer.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #14 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
The script I attached in the previous comment - call it "lock.sh" here - could
be included in xflock4 (but it should check whether the commands it uses are
available; I think checking "convert" suffices).

Support for xautolock included in the proposed xflock4 allows configuring a
screen locker elsewhere: running command

xautolock -nocloseerr -locker : -nowlocker PATH-TO-lock.sh

as an autostarted application would do the trick.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

Silvio Knizek <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #15 from Silvio Knizek <[hidden email]> ---
I want to add »dm-tool lock« to the list of available lockers. »dm-tool« is
provided by lightdm, which seems to become a quite popular desktop manager.

I have to mention that »dm-tool« spawns a new X server at another terminal, so
it's easy to bypass this locker with Ctrl + Alt + Fn if »DontVTSwitch« is not
set in the xorg.conf.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

--- Comment #16 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
@Silvio Knizek, light-locker is supposed to be more secure and to work with
lightdm. Besides, the proposed xflock4 can be used to call dm-tool, id you run

xautolock -nocloseerr -locker : -nowlocker "dm-tool lock"

as part of application autostart.

A downside of using xautolock is that xflock4 may exit before the screen is
locked, as it runs the locker in background, which causes
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10089

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon
In reply to this post by bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217

Andrew Chadwick <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #17 from Andrew Chadwick <[hidden email]> ---
I find that light-locker does the right thing under Debian testing/unstable: by
itself it will lock my laptop's screen when it suspends, which xscreensaver no
longer does after the latest upower/systemd/logind shuffles. For a whole system
which uses lightdm for logins, it really does look like the right approach.

+1 on Jarno Suni's patch 5359. light-locker-command is sensible in that it will
exit with a nonzero status if light-locker is not running, just like the
commands for other screensaver daemons.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Xfce-bugs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
1234
Loading...