On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:33:59PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
OK, I misunderstood the problem. I thought the difficulty was to fire
the screensaver on the behalf of the active user. Isn't the information
about running a power management software available through DBus?
Hmm, that's actually a
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 09:53:00PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
Yes, this would send the XF86ScreenSaver which would kick the
screensaver of the currently displayed X session. This is another
(imperfect) way to solve the problem of locking the user's screen
without needing either an entry in
❦ 9 juillet 2012 10:06 CEST, Michael Meskes mes...@debian.org :
Yes, this would send the XF86ScreenSaver which would kick the
screensaver of the currently displayed X session. This is another
(imperfect) way to solve the problem of locking the user's screen
without needing either an entry
On Jul 09, Vincent Bernat ber...@debian.org wrote:
OK, I misunderstood the problem. I thought the difficulty was to fire
the screensaver on the behalf of the active user. Isn't the information
about running a power management software available through DBus?
The whole point of this discussion
❦ 7 juillet 2012 20:38 CEST, Michael Meskes mes...@debian.org :
The bug is already closed but I'd like to share another solution: I am
using acpi_fakekey $KEY_COFFEE which sends XF86ScreenSaver key to the
currently displayed X server. This is not foolproof (only one X server,
only if it is
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 01:29:39AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
The bug is already closed but I'd like to share another solution: I am
using acpi_fakekey $KEY_COFFEE which sends XF86ScreenSaver key to the
currently displayed X server. This is not foolproof (only one X server,
only if it is
❦ 26 juin 2012 14:48 CEST, Michael Meskes mes...@debian.org :
I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very
happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built
acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed.
I'm not sure I like the attitude
* Michael Meskes mes...@debian.org [120626 14:48]:
[ Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org [120626 12:05]:]
I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very
happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built
acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency
On Jun 27, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
I'd prefer to get this fixed in acpi-support-base, but I think you
have made your point very clear that the only purpose of that package is
to not do anything if some power manager is running and that to detect this
perfectly you are
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org
Package name: acpi-support-minimal
License : GPL2+
Description: minimal scripts for handling base ACPI events
This package contains minimal scripts to react to various base
ACPI events such as the power
Hi!
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:52:48 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org
Package name: acpi-support-minimal
License : GPL2+
Description: minimal scripts for handling base ACPI events
This package contains
I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very
happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built
acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed.
I'm not sure I like the attitude here. If that gets closed again sounds like
I was closing the bug
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 14:48:10 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very
happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built
acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed.
I'm not sure I like the attitude
13 matches
Mail list logo
