Re: xfce4-screensaver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hi Yves-Alexis
On 2018/11/21 16:23, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> So: what are the pros and cons of xfce4-screensaver? I have no idea wh
y there
> is yet another screensaver rewrite/fork upstream, but it's done. That
being
> said that doesn't mean we need to introduce it in Debian.
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.
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.
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
on.
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.
> Why fixing light-locker is not possible? What assurance do we have the
xfce4-
> 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).
- -Jonathan
- --
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=cIXZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: