Processed: Re: Bug#919348: is it still unfit for Bullseye?
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #919348 {Done: Jonathan Carter } [xfce4-screensaver]
xfce4-screensaver: Accidental upload to unstable while fixing bug #919151
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #919348 to the same values
previously set
--
919348: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919348
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#919348: is it still unfit for Bullseye?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 control: reopen -1 On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 00:44 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > 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. :) I've done a bit of testing of xfce4-screensaver and *twice* today it segfaulted on me: [1544037.932910] xfce4-screensav[4272]: segfault at 20016 ip 7819061b801c sp 7fff9b07d7c8 error 4 in libgobject-2.0.so.0.5800.3 (deleted)[78190618e000+32000] [1604078.180051] xfce4-screensav[22182]: segfault at 20016 ip 79321bc2201c sp 7ffeac850768 error 4 in libgobject-2.0.so.0.5800.3[79321bbf8000+32000] I didn't investigated those crashes yet but that doesn't look that good. When the locker crashes,the session is wide open. When that happen at lid close, for example, you don't have any feedback. So I wouldn't push xfce4-screensaver in a stable release right now. Regards, - -- Yves-Alexis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAl0uFi8ACgkQ3rYcyPpX RFtsnAgAhZlWoV+Y4l+V5l0XBO2V8MBb/PkINU+I1WiwhlTMYpj6y6zF8L3Fe4SU K4TPnLOVy6jPYEI4PnSikjL30UzemROoEY6kXLb30H5Myyr5LGgmc0vcGcKLgNs0 CFEJkxIbnVAweRGcTG4n0oVA4Wku87KrTVesyLwXU+KZ2UARvUE0cTk002GEYJ+B 6mIyNb58FDqQ5W33PeGeH+awDsNl+JRI99Gh464rRddFngbkiw8pMSNgaCegs0jh f6B7S7uSiHktsqurW4Mg8lYlx/apqqyWuU1Xnj5DG1cthBlk51cn6Nqn9BUk5Mob JGS37cCfWZbBJ6Yj9KdN7YdigmcvKw== =XjcB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#919348: is it still unfit for Bullseye?
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? ⠈⠳⣄
Bug#919348: is it still unfit for Bullseye?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 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. > > 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). The light-locker code in the process which does the locking is actually quite simple (no complicated UI, no screensaver at all etc.) > 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. 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. Regards, - -- Yves-Alexis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAl0p7V8ACgkQ3rYcyPpX RFukHgf/ZnnS9kS/YG0jO2hB1ztalDxZ6UeQqgCGBiJXnlha228HtDD5Xku2noUZ 1Ke/pGAzULmugjbbhHGc8AmbgIJGgRP+WdjCy9aaVghLvVPdW3y31hh2GSQgUOTV aqFT9t0PqoLH/71UwmON0WT4/6BUlcm8dcmpZ80lv2Z1nd1nCuVJ/52sM8NY342m DwBU7NB4d17liKTmLp4opH5+JVA77DbJkXx7SsJBI5Lkkp/71sv8FLQv+nNSGSH5 7rf8xg1JLaMflVdcmk2IPYgYlkZT4pfJWgnma6onz7cQURjco8sZ0Iinzei4E5xC K3Ay7gY7+aYNAewN2AgT04euMHwWOg== =holV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#919348: is it still unfit for Bullseye?
> So we're filing an RC bug to prevent it from migrating to testing, > this can be closed once buster is frozen. 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. If you're afraid about yet-unknown bugs, more exposure to users early in the release cycle would be a good idea. 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 (jwz's time bomb being indeed a good reason). Closing this bug should be enough...? Meow. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ According to recent spams, "all my email accounts are owned ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ by a hacker". So what's the problem? ⠈⠳⣄
