-----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-----