<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - xdg-screensaver could be simplified" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42776#c7">Comment # 7</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - xdg-screensaver could be simplified" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42776">bug 42776</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:j_suni@yahoo.co.uk" title="Jarno Suni <j_suni@yahoo.co.uk>"> Jarno Suni</a> <pre>Rex Dieter, your code to detect gnome-screensaver would fix the bug: <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-utils/+bug/1266882">https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-utils/+bug/1266882</a> I have proposed a different method for detecting (a running) screen saver in this Xfce bug report: <a href="https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3770">https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3770</a> (Please, see my recent attachment.) I wish a fix will be released soon to the above mentioned bug at launchpad.net. I wish support for light-locker (<a href="http://www.webupd8.org/2013/07/light-locker-new-session-locker-for.html">http://www.webupd8.org/2013/07/light-locker-new-session-locker-for.html</a>) were added, too, as it is going to be used in some next Ubuntu distributions AFAIK. Also, some available daemonles locker could be used to lock as a last resort, if a screen saver can't be detected. Maybe xautolock should not be used, unless user has explicitly told so, as someone could use it for other purpose than screen locking, and it does not give any error, even if a locker is unconfigured, when user requests locking. What do you think? I think that if xdg-screensaver would be fixed and it would support more alternatives for locking, "xdg-screensaver lock" could replace scripts "xflock4" and "lxlock" in Xfce and LXDE, respectively.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>