On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 04:40:31PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On Thu, 2019-07-11 at 10:34 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > So... is there any reason to not let xfce4-screensaver go to Bullseye? > > Any day that a human being suffers from light-locker is a bad day. > > Hi Adam, > > could you please refrain from such statements? Some people, volunteers mostly, > have taken time to actual write that software, package it etc. I find this > rude, to be honest.
Well, there is no problem in software X having bugs -- any non-trivial program is buggy, and especially a novel approach like that tried by light-locker is bound to run into problems. But, pushing a thoroughly buggy piece of code, that's in my opinion not fit for release, as the default for a major desktop environment, and the only allowed by that DE's task, is not a good idea. Apologies for expressing myself too emphatically -- but with my (indeed rude) wording aside, the point stands. > > If you're afraid about yet-unknown bugs, more exposure to users early > > in the release cycle would be a good idea. > > For a locker screen, I'd really like someone to take a look at the code (even > if only the differences with gnome-screensaver). I'm afraid I have no experience at all with X coding, all I can offer is testing as a mere user. But I do run a diverse set of machines, ranging four archs (amd64 i386 x32 arm64), ages (2004-2018), types (desktops, SoC, laptops), GPUs, rc systems (sysv-rc, openrc -- with one notable omission :p), etc -- thus I believe my good opinion about xfce4-screensaver carries some weight. > The light-locker code in the process which does the locking is actually > quite simple (no complicated UI, no screensaver at all etc.) Yet the way it offloads the task to lightdm is fragile. > > On the other hand, light-locker suffers from a multitude of known > > problems (see the recent debian-devel thread), and you hate the third > > alternative, xscreensaver > > Actually no-one seems to know which package(s) is buggy. My gut feeling is > that the drivers handle vt-switches and backlight off badly, not a bug in > light-locker. But again no-one seems interested to find out. This particular problem may be indeed hard to track, but none of the alternatives (xscreensaver, xfce4-screensaver) suffer from it. Nor from the others (no visual feedback that you're logged in, pointless vt switches, not working when started not from a DM, ... [I haven't retried in a while, some of those might have been fixed]). Unless you have a particular reason to stick with light-locker, fixing it may be a waste of your time. > If you volunteer, I welcome any help on this, whether by finding the issues > with the light-locker/lightdm/DDX stack or actually making sure there's no > security issue in xfce4-screensaver. I'm afraid I have neither the tuits nor expertise to help with fixing or dedicated QA here, just testing as a part of using the product of your efforts in my daily work and hacking. And there's a reason I annoy you rather than Mate, KDE, *shudder* Gnome, or Gnustep folks :) But, in this case, I am very excited that you have a replacement for something I find to be hopelessly buggy -- and the replacement seems near-perfect. Thus, if you switch, you save a lot of time, and any bit of time you save is a bit of time you can spend catering to my other whims. :) Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ According to recent spams, "all my email accounts are owned ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ by a hacker". So what's the problem? ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
