[PATCH] Update xflock4 (Bug 10217) again

Rob McCathie rob at manjaro.org
Fri Mar 20 00:21:28 CET 2015

On 19/03/15 19:55, Alexander Mezin wrote:
> 2015-03-19 14:06 GMT+06:00 Guido Berhoerster <gber at opensuse.org>:
>> * Alexander Mezin <mezin.alexander at gmail.com> [2015-03-18 21:30]:
>>> Based on patch by Jarno Suni.
>>> - Use pgrep instead of pidof, which is, hopefully, available
>>> everywhere.
>>> - Check screensavers running under current uid only.
>> Process names are never a reliable way to check for the
>> screensaver running in the currently active session even if you
>> restrict it to a user. See comment #22 on that bug for the way
>> forward.
> But it's still better than current xflock4.
> Maybe merge this patch for now, and replace with something better later?
> With current state of Xfce 4.12, I can configure light-locker's
> settings from GUI, but the locking itself doesn't work. Isn't it
> silly?

Just want to voice support here from Manjaro devs and community for 
Light-Locker support.

I understand that a better system for screen locking is desired rather 
than the current way the xflock4 script works, but i don't see this as a 
good reason to not accept patches that improve the situation now, even 
if they don't make the situation completely optimal or final.

For Manjaro we've been modifying the xflock4 script to support 
light-locker for some time now.

My original pull request relating to this is here:

...but i recently closed it and opened a new one that is only 
light-locker support (not also LightDM's 'dm-tool' support):

Xubuntu and Manjaro are 2 of the more popular Xfce platforms and AFAIK 
both use LightDM and Light-Locker. It would really be nice if there was 
upstream support for them.


Rob McCathie
Manjaro Team

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list