[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lock screen is not working when logged into gnome from sddm



[Copying -devel for wider comments]

On 2016, ഫെബ്രുവരി 2 10:25:56 AM IST, Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org> wrote:
>
>
>On 2016, ഫെബ്രുവരി 2 1:11:28 AM IST, Andreas Henriksson
><andreas@fatal.se> wrote:
>>Hello Pirate Praveen.
>>
>>On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:45:11PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>>> package: sddm, gdm3, gnome-session
>>> severity: important
>>> 
>>> Now it seems gnome session can lock screen only if logged in from
>>gdm3
>>> (isn't there a standard for display managers? is gnome breaking the
>>> standard of sddm not implementing a new standard? can't changes be
>>> better coordinated among DEs, can't we use freedesktop.org?). It
>>makes
>>> the whole system insecure as laptops when left unattended could be
>>> misused by anyone without auto lock.
>>> 
>>> Same issue for switch user.
>>
>>Not sure why you think things will continue to work if you just
>>replace random components of GNOME like this. You can replace
>>anything you want, but if it breaks you get to keep all the pieces.
>>The lock screen (et.al.) not working if you use another DM is
>>a well known issue. I'm not sure if particular component
>>can be "blamed" for this, since gnome-shell and gdm interaction
>>isn't something all other DMs are in any way required to
>>implement. Did SDDM claim it was a drop-in replacement for GDM?
>>If so, please file a bug against SDDM.
>
>All right. Let every project stay isolated and not care about
>interoperability.
>
>A display manager has always been about managing multiple DEs. 

I believe being able to lock screen is a basic feature of any DE. If gnome-shell does not work with other DEs, and if neither gnome-shell and DM developers don't care about interoperability, should we not add conflicts with all DMs except for gdm for gnome-shell?

>>Regards,
>>Andreas Henriksson

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


Reply to: