Bug#919348: is it still unfit for Bullseye?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, 2019-07-11 at 10:34 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> So... is there any reason to not let xfce4-screensaver go to Bullseye?
> Any day that a human being suffers from light-locker is a bad day.
Hi Adam,
could you please refrain from such statements? Some people, volunteers mostly,
have taken time to actual write that software, package it etc. I find this
rude, to be honest.
>
> If you're afraid about yet-unknown bugs, more exposure to users early
> in the release cycle would be a good idea.
For a locker screen, I'd really like someone to take a look at the code (even
if only the differences with gnome-screensaver). The light-locker code in the
process which does the locking is actually quite simple (no complicated UI, no
screensaver at all etc.)
> On the other hand,
> light-locker suffers from a multitude of known problems (see the recent
> debian-devel thread), and you hate the third alternative, xscreensaver
Actually no-one seems to know which package(s) is buggy. My gut feeling is
that the drivers handle vt-switches and backlight off badly, not a bug in
light-locker. But again no-one seems interested to find out.
If you volunteer, I welcome any help on this, whether by finding the issues
with the light-locker/lightdm/DDX stack or actually making sure there's no
security issue in xfce4-screensaver.
Regards,
- --
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAl0p7V8ACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFukHgf/ZnnS9kS/YG0jO2hB1ztalDxZ6UeQqgCGBiJXnlha228HtDD5Xku2noUZ
1Ke/pGAzULmugjbbhHGc8AmbgIJGgRP+WdjCy9aaVghLvVPdW3y31hh2GSQgUOTV
aqFT9t0PqoLH/71UwmON0WT4/6BUlcm8dcmpZ80lv2Z1nd1nCuVJ/52sM8NY342m
DwBU7NB4d17liKTmLp4opH5+JVA77DbJkXx7SsJBI5Lkkp/71sv8FLQv+nNSGSH5
7rf8xg1JLaMflVdcmk2IPYgYlkZT4pfJWgnma6onz7cQURjco8sZ0Iinzei4E5xC
K3Ay7gY7+aYNAewN2AgT04euMHwWOg==
=holV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: