https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=457859
--- Comment #12 from Oded Arbel <o...@geek.co.il> --- (In reply to Jakob Petsovits from comment #11) > In the meantime, it would be worth exploring whether setting a systemd > "sleep" and/or "idle" inhibitor should always keep a laptop from going to > sleep, or locking the screen, respectively. I think this is exactly what it means to "inhibit sleep" - that the system will not go to sleep. > Does a user expect that the > laptop will keep running with a sleep inhibitor being set, or would a user > expect that their configured lid action overrides any apps setting > inhibitors? If the user wants to just inhibit the lid close action, then they should inhibit "handle-lid-switch". I would like to use that so I can take my laptop from room to room, while it is still running, without having to carry it with the screen open - it is mighty uncomfortable and as far as I know this was the original impetus for inhibiting. > Will we need to distinguish? No, the inhibit actions are clearly labeled. I think the only confusing may arise from the inhibit type "sleep" vs. "idle", "handle-suspend-key" or "handle-lid-switch" - all the later ones describe the user behavior that will trigger sleep while the first one I believe would mean "any sleep". So closing the lid will cause the computer to sleep unless either "handle-lid-switch" *or* "sleep" is inhibited. Specifically, when I toggle the "Manually block sleep and screen locking" button in the PowerDevil Plasma widget, I expect my computer to not sleep for any reason - including closing the laptop lid or pressing the suspend key. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
