Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2020-01-19 Thread Simon Désaulniers
Hi dirdi, I took your advice into accoutn and included the full notice under KNOWN BUGS section while keeping a short (but highlighted) notice under the option's description. This way, there should be no confusion. Thank you for the advice. Regards, On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 08:15:28PM +0100,

Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2020-01-10 Thread Simon Désaulniers
I have produced this patch (attached to this mail). If you think that this is not sufficient, tell me. The patch won't be merged until a couple of days anyway. On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 04:18:40PM -0500, Simon Désaulniers wrote: > Hi again, > > Actually, I have just looked at the man page and the

Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2020-01-10 Thread Simon Désaulniers
Hi again, Actually, I have just looked at the man page and the faulty behaviour is not about the option `-n`, but the default program behaviour as you said previously. However, this is under documentation for `-n` that forking is mentioned. Therefore, the second suggestion about removing the

Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2020-01-10 Thread Simon Désaulniers
Hi dirdi, You are right. Would you simply add a notice in the man page by forwarding to the upstream bug URL? Or would you totally remove the option from the man page? I am more tempted in doing the former. What do you think? Regards, On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:29:09AM +0100, dirdi wrote: >

Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2020-01-05 Thread dirdi
Package: i3lock-fancy Version: 0.0~git20160228.0.0fcb933-2 Followup-For: Bug #93 I suggest to at least patch the man page and document the actual behavior, since not forking might have severe security implications: E.g. consider the following shell script which is supposed to lock the

Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2020-01-05 Thread Simon Désaulniers
Hi again, I have been told that we don't close upstream bugs. In fact, you clearly tagged it accordingly. Therefore, I guess you should forget my comment. I will reopen this bug and flag it as forwarded to the upstream issue I mentioned before. We'll wait for reoslution from upstream. Regards,

Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2020-01-05 Thread Simon Désaulniers
Hi, > Unlike the man page suggests, i3lock-fancy does not fork, no matter if the > -n argument was supplied or not. This issue is not related to any manipulation on the packager's end. This is an upstream issue. In fact, a bug report has been filed [1] in upstream's bug tracking system exactly

Bug#934444: i3lock-fancy does not fork

2019-08-10 Thread dirdi
Package: i3lock-fancy Version: 0.0~git20160228.0.0fcb933-2 Severity: normal Tags: upstream Unlike the man page suggests, i3lock-fancy does not fork, no matter if the -n argument was supplied or not. -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500,