On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:15:39AM -0500, Jens John wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, at 12:02, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
> > I am sorry to ask this so late in the discussion, but why Arch default of
> > the
> > "other" module was insecure (and hence why the change)? Is there something
> >
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, at 12:02, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
> I am sorry to ask this so late in the discussion, but why Arch default of the
> "other" module was insecure (and hence why the change)? Is there something
> wrong with pam_unix?
Not inherently. They implemented a suggestion from
On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 13:27 +0100, Ralf Mardorf via arch-general wrote:
> I'll file a bug report against xlockmore later.
Oops, it is already reported two times.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?string=xlock&project=5&search_name=&type%5B%5D=&sev%5B%5D=&pri%5B%5D=&due%5B%5D=&reported%5B%5D=&c
I just noticed this:
$ pacman -Qi xfce4-session | grep -A 4 Optional\ Deps | tail -2
xlockmore: for locking screen with xflock4 [installed]
slock: for locking screen with xflock4 [installed]
It's indeed xlock, that is and should be used by xflock4, furthermore
Hi,
if I try to unlock the screen after running xflock4 by an fbpanel menu
entry or from command line, validation of the password fails. The
language settings are en_US.utf8 The keyboard layout is German. However,
the keyboard layout seems not to be related to the issue.
On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 07:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:54:22PM -0600, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:42:01 -0800
> frede...@ofb.net wrote:
>
> > I don't understand the need for that reaction...
>
> He posted that he's glad he broke the rules, implying that he'd gladly do it
> again in the futu
6 matches
Mail list logo
