Re: FVWM: Is Idle status communicated to SystemD?
Thanks. Indeed, xautolock will work for me. Making Fvwm dependent on systemd would certainly be suboptimal. Thanks, GI -- 'Common' Proof Techniques: 26. Proof by appeal to intuition -- Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help here.
Re: FVWM: Is Idle status communicated to SystemD?
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:37 PM wrote: > > Hi All, > > it looks like it's the WM's responsibility to notify SystemD of the idle > status. Does fvwm do this? (I start Fvwm from sddm, or directly via > startx from the text console.) > > If anyone has it working and has any tips they can share that would be > appreciated. > I am unsure about how to notify systemd, but on my system I use xautolock to lock my screen with i3lock. I don't use suspend, but you can configure xautolock to run any command after a set amount of time of inactivity in xorg. So you could use xautolock to suspend your system via systemctl suspend provided your user has permissions to do this. This doesn't directly answer your question of how to configure this in logind.conf with systemd, but it will give you a way to suspend in xorg after certain amount of inactivity. jaimos
FVWM: Is Idle status communicated to SystemD?
Hi All, I'm trying to get my computer to sleep when inactive. I have: IdleAction=suspend IdleActionSec=30min in /etc/systemd/logind.conf. However, no action is taken no matter how long the system is left idle. After looking here: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1295 it looks like it's the WM's responsibility to notify SystemD of the idle status. Does fvwm do this? (I start Fvwm from sddm, or directly via startx from the text console.) If anyone has it working and has any tips they can share that would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, GI -- 'Common' Proof Techniques: 27. "Reductio ad erratum": Assume the statement to be proved is false. Write down all the consequences you can. Sooner or later you will make a mistake. At some later time, this mistake will lead to a contradiction.
