-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi Jonathan and Sean (adding to CC here since I already read the followup
mail, I'l do a reply there too).
I'll be a bit blunt, but it's in no way oriented towards you, Sean or even the
software itself. I actually don't have any strong feeling for or against
xfce4-screensaver, my feelings are more about its inclusion.
On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 16:57 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> This is essentially a fork of mate-screensaver (which was a fork of the
> original gnome-screensaver) but without all the mate dependencies. It
> has better integration with xfce than xscreensaver, especially in terms
> of appearance and its theming.
So yet another fork of the same codebase. With my security team hat on, that's
yet another embedded code copy which we have to maintain. It'd be really nice
to be able to solve the various issues in the same codebase rather than
> I would not pit it directly against light-locker since they are somewhat
> different tools. light-locker is a screen lock utility that integrates
> with lightdm, where xfce4-screensaver also locks your screen but
> displays screensavers while doing so.
To be direct: I don't care one bit about screensavers. In 2018 the monitors
don't actually need them (CRTs are basically gone and we don't have a lot of
OLED monitors either, and I don't think they'd burn). I'm interested in screen
lockers to protect the users data, that's all.
> xfce4-screensaver is also still in an early phase, and I don't think it
> would be wise to replace light-locker with xfce4-screensaver any time so
> Having said that, I do intend to use it, and have users who want to use
> it, and having it in Debian is a lot better than users having to get it
> from some random PPA. I can't think of a reason why it would be
> inappropriate to have this in Debian at all.
Except that if it's in Debian, it should be maintained. And that means time,
resources and commitment. I know I'm already struggling, and if people are
motivated in joining the Xfce team, I think there are other priorities. I
can't force people to work on them, but I can at least point to them.
> > Why fixing light-locker is not possible? What assurance do we have the
> > screensaver won't be ditched for something else in a few months/year?
> I don't think that such an assurance exists for any software. IMHO the
> amount of login managers, screensavers, etc is already a mess and I
> actually hope that we'll be able to ditch some of the existing
> implementations in the future for something that makes more sense (no
> chance of that happening for buster though).
We can at least try to prevent adding to the mess, though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----