[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.kde.org/show_b ||ug.cgi?id=487118 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 --- Comment #16 from Wyatt Childers --- *** Bug 463017 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 --- Comment #15 from Wyatt Childers --- I in looking at this a little closer do think this is actually the real bug though (not the display). https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/commit/f57ed505719f7371496c1b0b843d46e160bd6253 > This lets sandboxed apps inhibit session status changes, such as suspend or > idle. This is the API that lets movie players prevent the screensaver from > kicking in halfway through the movie. org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit was pretty clearly intended to affect the Screen Saver -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 --- Comment #14 from Wyatt Childers --- Bug 487118 filed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 --- Comment #13 from Nate Graham --- Sure. Like I said, please open a new bug report for it. What Plasma *does* and what Plasma *displays to the user* are different things. This bug report is about the former case; you want it to do something different in the latter case. And that's valid, but it needs a different bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 --- Comment #12 from Wyatt Childers --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #9) > If adding a permission in the Flatpak packaging fixes the bug that power > management isn't inhibited correctly, then the bug is caused by incorrect > Flatpak packaging. > > There may also be an opportunity to clean something up on our side such that > when that permission is missing, the Power & Battery widget won't even show > the false inhibition notice in the first place. That would be a separate > issue. I'll leave it up to Natalie and Jakob as to whether they think that's > worth doing. The latter part is what I'm referring to. I likely would have figured this out in Bug 433452 (way back in 2021) if Plasma was actually telling the truth about the situation. Instead, Plasma said that it was doing something that it clearly wasn't and we've had annoying packaging bugs in the ecosystem for AT LEAST 3 YEARS. This is FAR from the first time I've been incredibly frustrated with KDE's power management reporting and documentation. I had to do all the grunt work several years ago communicating with the Plex team to get Plex to work with Plasma's power management https://forums.plex.tv/t/linux-flatpak-player-doesnt-inhibit-power-management/804528. > What you describe next is a different issue: Bug 328987. It is but it also isn't because SDL (powering moonlight under the hood) is actively trying to stop the screen saver from working. Plasma is reporting that it's succeeding at that, and it fails anyways. The SDL code is seemingly even capable of using org.freedesktop.ScreenSaver but seemingly neglects to use that code path if Inhibit succeeds: https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/blob/17965117824d82afd0f6692c8871510f942270f7/src/core/linux/SDL_dbus.c#L367 https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/blob/17965117824d82afd0f6692c8871510f942270f7/src/core/linux/SDL_dbus.c#L460 Multiple major developers are clearly genuinely being confused about what signal they need to be sending for the behavior they want. How Plasma responds to Inhibit, both in the UI and power management side is surely entirely within its control. This is no different to me than if Dolphin said it deleted a file but the file is still in the directory. I'm grateful for all the work various people in this community do, but can we please accept there's a *real* bug here and that the Plasma UI should not actively lie about the behavior of its own power management system? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 --- Comment #11 from Nate Graham --- I don't know, but hopefully either Natalie or Jabob does, hence why I CCd them :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 --- Comment #10 from kinghat --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #9) > If adding a permission in the Flatpak packaging fixes the bug that power > management isn't inhibited correctly, then the bug is caused by incorrect > Flatpak packaging. > > There may also be an opportunity to clean something up on our side such that > when that permission is missing, the Power & Battery widget won't even show > the false inhibition notice in the first place. That would be a separate > issue. I'll leave it up to Natalie and Jakob as to whether they think that's > worth doing. > > > Also, this is not just a Firefox thing, this affects other t (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #9) > If adding a permission in the Flatpak packaging fixes the bug that power > management isn't inhibited correctly, then the bug is caused by incorrect > Flatpak packaging. > > There may also be an opportunity to clean something up on our side such that > when that permission is missing, the Power & Battery widget won't even show > the false inhibition notice in the first place. That would be a separate > issue. I'll leave it up to Natalie and Jakob as to whether they think that's > worth doing. what is plasma doing to decide that the app is inhibiting? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[Powerdevil] [Bug 485376] org.freedesktop.portal.Inhibit used by Flatpaked apps does not actually prevent screen locking / sleeping
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485376 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Product|xdg-desktop-portal-kde |Powerdevil CC||jpe...@petsovits.com, ||m...@ratijas.tk, ||natalie_clar...@yahoo.de Component|general |general --- Comment #9 from Nate Graham --- If adding a permission in the Flatpak packaging fixes the bug that power management isn't inhibited correctly, then the bug is caused by incorrect Flatpak packaging. There may also be an opportunity to clean something up on our side such that when that permission is missing, the Power & Battery widget won't even show the false inhibition notice in the first place. That would be a separate issue. I'll leave it up to Natalie and Jakob as to whether they think that's worth doing. > Also, this is not just a Firefox thing, this affects other things like > Moonlight. What you describe next is a different issue: Bug 328987. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
