[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] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

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

Eric Koegel <[hidden email]> changed:

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

--- Comment #18 from Eric Koegel <[hidden email]> ---
*** Bug 10913 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

--
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

Christian Hesse <[hidden email]> changed:

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

--
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

Guido Berhoerster <[hidden email]> changed:

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

--- Comment #19 from Guido Berhoerster <[hidden email]> ---
Eric, the script from this bug that you just pushed to git is totally broken,
in particular its guesswork of the running screensaver. pidof is not
universally available (on my SUSE system it comes from Linux sysvinit) and it
cannot be safely used this way. It even has a potential security impact, if
multiple users are logged in and they are running different screensavers the
locking can fail.

Frankly, I think the xflock4 script is utter crap and broken by design. It
would be both simpler, safer and a lot more sane to replace it with a xfconf
setting for a command that is executed synchronously to lock the screen,
possibly even with a small delay as to ensure the screen is locked before
sleep/hibernate and not immediately after wakeup as it is now.
It should probably be preconfigured to xscreensaver-command since xfce4-session
already has a preference for xscreensaver supplying an autostart file for it.

--
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

Eric Koegel <[hidden email]> changed:

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

--- Comment #20 from Eric Koegel <[hidden email]> ---
You're right (as always). pgrep might be a better tool than pidof,
availability-wise.

If we go the xfconf route we can have xfpm use it if there's a value set. That
way there aren't different settings everywhere. I know Simon had some ideas for
locking he wrote down in the xfpm roadmap (under the 1.6 or later section)
https://wiki.xfce.org/design/power-manager So if we come up with something
better that would be great.

--
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 #21 from Guido Berhoerster <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Eric Koegel from comment #20)
> You're right (as always). pgrep might be a better tool than pidof,
> availability-wise.

I don't think it can be reliably implemented via the process list. It is also
does not seem necessary for the current cases since it is possible to query
whether a screensaver is running via xscreensaver-command -v,
{gnome,mate,cinnamon}-screensaver-command --query, and LightDM can be queried
via DBus.

> If we go the xfconf route we can have xfpm use it if there's a value set.
> That way there aren't different settings everywhere. I know Simon had some
> ideas for locking he wrote down in the xfpm roadmap (under the 1.6 or later
> section) https://wiki.xfce.org/design/power-manager So if we come up with
> something better that would be great.

The proposal looks reasonable, you could ship some presets (similar to the
preferred applications setting) and detect the running screensaver via the
heuristics mentioned above or the availability of known lock commands in case
no daemon is running.
However, I'd personally favor something even more simple, i.e. just a free-form
text entry for the locking command corresponding to a xfconf string. In the
vast majority of use-cases a distributor or sysadmin will preinstall a
preferred screensaver and the corresponding locking command can then be easily
preconfigured via system-wide xfconf default setting. In case a user later
consciously switches to a different screensaver, I think he probably has
sufficient technical skills to adapt the locking command setting as well.

--
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

Simon Steinbeiss <[hidden email]> changed:

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

--- Comment #22 from Simon Steinbeiss <[hidden email]> ---
What annoys me a bit to be honest is that we currently have locking settings in
the session manager settings and in xfce4-power-manager.

If the settings in the session manager will be improved, I guess it would make
sense to consolidate them there and simply don't show locking stuff in xfpm
(e.g. "lock on suspend"), at least if xfce4-session is running / available.

Guido, what you propose is very much up my alley (adding a simple xfconf
option), however, given the commotion surrounding Xubuntu's switch to
light-locker by default and seeing what avenues simple (and sometimes quite
unexperienced and ignorant) users take to install other lockers/screensavers,
I'm wondering whether some autodetection (in addition to providing a simple way
for the distributor to preset a locker) wouldn't hurt.
What I have in mind is something that works pretty much like the preferred apps
dialog, where users can switch to other screensavers choosing from a list but
also enter a custom command. (The default set by the distributor would be
listed there as well obviously.)

As a second step we could take a look the various bugreports surrounding xflock
and xfpm-locking and consider whether to implement options/settings for some of
the lockers. E.g. when a dead simple locker is used that has no screensaver
integrated, it might be nice to fade to black and decrease the X11 DPMS
settings (and resetting that of course upon unlock/wakeup).

--
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 #23 from liquider <[hidden email]> ---
Having an xfconf setting and require the user to (re)set it is no real
improvement; everyone can edit and override their /usr[/local]/bin/xflock4.

--
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 know about proper lockers

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

[hidden email] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Xflock4 doesn't knows about |Xflock4 doesn't know about
                   |actual lockers              |proper 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

[Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #24 from Eric Koegel <[hidden email]> ---
Reverted the commit because it's Linux specific.
http://git.xfce.org/xfce/xfce4-session/commit/?id=77cff3b344e65cccd135dc37b5324b9864946ef4

--
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 know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #25 from Pablo Lezaeta <[hidden email]> ---
>Having an xfconf setting and require the user to (re)set it is no real improvement; everyone can edit and override their /usr[/local]/bin/xflock4.

I agree and additionally an update from the distro holder could in some
packagemanager overwrite the edit.

I preffer the idea of "let the user decide in a dialog like what is done
actually for filemanager or webbrowser".

--
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 know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #26 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Pablo Lezaeta from comment #25)

> I preffer the idea of "let the user decide in a dialog like what is done
> actually for filemanager or webbrowser".

Yes, it is easiest for the user, if he/she can setup a locker via Xfce settings
manager. No need to read documentation :)

--
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 know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #27 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to sor.alexei from comment #0)
> Created attachment 5088 [details]
> 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.

Maybe that is because gnome-screensaver is available in Ubuntu repositories,
mate-screensaver and cinnamon-screensaver are not before the upcoming release
14.10. What happens if you run "mate-screensaver-command --lock" or
"cinnamon-screensaver-command --lock" when a respective daemon is not running?
Does it exit with nonzero code or print something in standard error or standard
output? Or does it lock screen like "gnome-screensaver-command --lock"?

--
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 know about proper 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|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |
   Attachment #5682|                            |review+
              Flags|                            |

--- Comment #28 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
Created attachment 5682
  --> https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5682&action=edit
Not using pidof to detect which screensaver is running, as adviced in comment
19. Does not add support for mate-screensaver and cinnamon-screensaver, yet,
because I can't test it.

In case xfconf implementation will not finish soon, I did try to fix xflock4.

--
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 know about proper lockers : [Attachment 5682] Not using pidof to detect which screensaver is running, as adviced in comment 19. Does not add support for mate-screensaver and cinnamon-screensaver, yet, because I can't test it.

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

Attachment 5682: Not using pidof to detect which screensaver is running, as
adviced in comment 19. Does not add support for mate-screensaver and
cinnamon-screensaver, yet, because I can't test it.
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5682&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 know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #29 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Eric Koegel from comment #20)
> You're right (as always). pgrep might be a better tool than pidof,
> availability-wise.

Maybe, and how is pgrep multiuser-wise?

--
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 know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #30 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Guido Berhoerster from comment #21)

> I don't think it can be reliably implemented via the process list. It is
> also does not seem necessary for the current cases since it is possible to
> query whether a screensaver is running via xscreensaver-command -v,
> {gnome,mate,cinnamon}-screensaver-command --query, and LightDM can be
> queried via DBus.

No need to do separate query for light-locker and xscreensaver: they won't
lock, if daemon is not running.

--
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 know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #31 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Simon Steinbeiss from comment #22)
> What annoys me a bit to be honest is that we currently have locking settings
> in the session manager settings and in xfce4-power-manager.
>
> If the settings in the session manager will be improved, I guess it would
> make sense to consolidate them there and simply don't show locking stuff in
> xfpm (e.g. "lock on suspend"), at least if xfce4-session is running /
> available.

IIRC some consolidation has been done already. Besides, please note that
light-locker has its own setting called "Lock on suspend" that works
independently of settings in the xfce4-power-manager and in xfce4-session. I
think having a setting is more important for the power manager; Optional
separate "Action Buttons" for suspend and lock&suspend would be nice in panel
anyway for maximum flexibility (though light-locker might lock no matter which
one you choose).

[...]
> As a second step we could take a look the various bugreports surrounding
> xflock and xfpm-locking and consider whether to implement options/settings
> for some of the lockers. E.g. when a dead simple locker is used that has no
> screensaver integrated, it might be nice to fade to black and decrease the
> X11 DPMS settings (and resetting that of course upon unlock/wakeup).

"xset dpms force off" does the trick in xflock4 with those lockers.
light-locker also turns off display when it locks. i3lock has --dpms option and
can turn power off also, if you press Esc on lock screen.

--
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 know about proper lockers

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

--- Comment #32 from Guido Berhoerster <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Jarno Suni from comment #28)
> Created attachment 5682 [details]
> Not using pidof to detect which screensaver is running, as adviced in
> comment 19. Does not add support for mate-screensaver and
> cinnamon-screensaver, yet, because I can't test it.
>
> In case xfconf implementation will not finish soon, I did try to fix xflock4.

The thing is that xflock4 is not fixable, it's a hack that's broken by design
and needs to go away.

(In reply to Jarno Suni from comment #29)
> (In reply to Eric Koegel from comment #20)
> > You're right (as always). pgrep might be a better tool than pidof,
> > availability-wise.
>
> Maybe, and how is pgrep multiuser-wise?

No, for non-cooperating screensavers (i.e. which provide a cli tool like
xscreensaver) it is impossible to reliably implement such a check, particularly
cross-platform. Instead of adding hack upon hack for obscure lockers that two
people actually use, this should to be turned into a setting. So if you want to
help out, you could start turning the locking command into a xfconf setting.

--
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 know about proper lockers : [Attachment 5688] Improved detection of whether gnome-screensaver is running

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

Attachment 5688: Improved detection of whether gnome-screensaver is running
https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5688&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 know about proper 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 #5682|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |
   Attachment #5688|                            |review+
              Flags|                            |

--- Comment #33 from Jarno Suni <[hidden email]> ---
Created attachment 5688
  --> https://bugzilla.xfce.org/attachment.cgi?id=5688&action=edit
Improved detection of whether gnome-screensaver is running

--
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...