[Xfce-bugs] [Bug 10217] Xflock4 doesn't knows about actual lockers

bugzilla-daemon at xfce.org bugzilla-daemon at xfce.org
Fri Aug 29 23:39:53 CEST 2014


--- Comment #21 from Guido Berhoerster <gber at opensuse.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Koegel from comment #20)
> You're right (as always). pgrep might be a better tool than pidof,
> availability-wise.

I don't think it can be reliably implemented via the process list. It is also
does not seem necessary for the current cases since it is possible to query
whether a screensaver is running via xscreensaver-command -v,
{gnome,mate,cinnamon}-screensaver-command --query, and LightDM can be queried
via DBus.

> If we go the xfconf route we can have xfpm use it if there's a value set.
> That way there aren't different settings everywhere. I know Simon had some
> ideas for locking he wrote down in the xfpm roadmap (under the 1.6 or later
> section) https://wiki.xfce.org/design/power-manager So if we come up with
> something better that would be great.

The proposal looks reasonable, you could ship some presets (similar to the
preferred applications setting) and detect the running screensaver via the
heuristics mentioned above or the availability of known lock commands in case
no daemon is running.
However, I'd personally favor something even more simple, i.e. just a free-form
text entry for the locking command corresponding to a xfconf string. In the
vast majority of use-cases a distributor or sysadmin will preinstall a
preferred screensaver and the corresponding locking command can then be easily
preconfigured via system-wide xfconf default setting. In case a user later
consciously switches to a different screensaver, I think he probably has
sufficient technical skills to adapt the locking command setting as well.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

More information about the Xfce-bugs mailing list