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

Re: Bug#929834: Buster/XFCE unlock screen is blank



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 18:32 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This appears to be a bug in light-locker specifically, which is the
> default screen lock program with XFCE with lightdm.  See, for instance:
> 
> https://github.com/the-cavalry/light-locker/issues/114

Actually it seems to me that the bug is a bad interaction with light-
locker/lightdm locking system (which relies on vt switch) and the Intel
driver. It only seems to happens on this driver, and I think it's also been
reproduced just by doing vt-switches (but can't remember where it was
reported).
> 
> Switching to another greeter from the default gtk-greeter appears to help
> according to that bug, which may mean that the bug is actually in
> lightdm-gtk-greeter.  There doesn't appear to be a Debian bug for this; it
> might be a good idea to open one against light-locker (or, if you confirm
> switching to slick-greeter per that bug, lightdm-gtk-greeter).

There are at least a gazillion bugs against light-locker and lightdm, or xfce.
I tried to at least merge some of them (like #846278) but clearly failed to
identify all of them.

And people are still reporting new ones (or posting to -devel) so clearly they
are hard to spot.

Maybe locking through vt-switch is a bad idea,

I noted Andreas raised the severity, but I hope someone has an idea how to fix
that because I don't.

Regards,
- -- 
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAlz1eyAACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFvkhQf8Dqj0s6569PTiyxfczeA2PV83LWFdBOaCU3FDHv3I3Gdk2E+CR8UpunwI
n+YsAEIU/bixAGVhH8yiPKSJiZg4Zjv7pCLVKNHSeg9vigAIWzjag+dArFQciZkP
4JdqtmJRxPwKyK4v7Fp2u3/DK8kjHvUKr0AafkhVGxo0qSuvTUxqBhiy5CeBX4NP
2lnZ5JE+zUsuweEFomy/FAXMMC8E34eWCWtQ/w4iJlwlUghPLR0YbRANN1sbqz73
MHT/fCF+xCKoSRDQT+UZWNGs9hCEDOpoAydXIuwiMzXxsKG83SFGuCFku4ZGZ0vK
d4nzUUNx7UhpwcGWSKAXOq1TbtfnJA==
=lmZk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: