You can subscribe to this list here.
2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(24) |
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(39) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(11) |
Nov
(14) |
Dec
(21) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2009 |
Jan
(28) |
Feb
(21) |
Mar
(30) |
Apr
(53) |
May
(90) |
Jun
(49) |
Jul
(181) |
Aug
(35) |
Sep
(18) |
Oct
(30) |
Nov
(34) |
Dec
(106) |
2010 |
Jan
(69) |
Feb
(107) |
Mar
(248) |
Apr
(189) |
May
(62) |
Jun
(109) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(108) |
Sep
(61) |
Oct
(44) |
Nov
(16) |
Dec
(22) |
2011 |
Jan
(50) |
Feb
(41) |
Mar
(30) |
Apr
(48) |
May
(24) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(45) |
Sep
(43) |
Oct
(59) |
Nov
(60) |
Dec
(43) |
2012 |
Jan
(59) |
Feb
(30) |
Mar
(82) |
Apr
(53) |
May
(93) |
Jun
(101) |
Jul
(79) |
Aug
(87) |
Sep
(51) |
Oct
(66) |
Nov
(120) |
Dec
(30) |
2013 |
Jan
(20) |
Feb
(53) |
Mar
(19) |
Apr
(111) |
May
(63) |
Jun
(20) |
Jul
(156) |
Aug
(177) |
Sep
(68) |
Oct
(162) |
Nov
(300) |
Dec
(96) |
2014 |
Jan
(58) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(68) |
Apr
(138) |
May
(270) |
Jun
(63) |
Jul
(126) |
Aug
(78) |
Sep
(85) |
Oct
(182) |
Nov
(69) |
Dec
(54) |
2015 |
Jan
(77) |
Feb
(97) |
Mar
(44) |
Apr
(31) |
May
(20) |
Jun
(72) |
Jul
(31) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(19) |
Oct
(22) |
Nov
(53) |
Dec
(16) |
2016 |
Jan
(20) |
Feb
(26) |
Mar
(34) |
Apr
(22) |
May
(14) |
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(65) |
Oct
(20) |
Nov
(25) |
Dec
(36) |
2017 |
Jan
(18) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(20) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(23) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(18) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(2) |
2018 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(32) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2019 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2020 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
|
Mar
(4) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(9) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
|
2021 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(3) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2022 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
(6) |
Jun
|
Jul
(25) |
Aug
|
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2023 |
Jan
|
Feb
(12) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
|
May
(5) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(10) |
Sep
(12) |
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(11) |
2024 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Guido B. <gui...@be...> - 2010-09-14 20:14:01
|
* PCMan <pcm...@gm...> [2010-09-14 15:48]: > > No, running "gnome-screensaver-command -l" without > > gnome-screensaver running will print > > **Message: Screensaver is not running! > > and return exit code 1. > This is not the case on my box. > It tried to launch gnome-screensaver even if this command failed. > I'm using ubuntu 10.04. > > Please read the source code of gnome-screesaver-command. > Is doesn't do what you said. > > http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-screensaver/tree/src/gnome-screensaver-command.c > > It exit with code 1 only when you pass wrong arguments, when dbus is > not available, and when you query the version number. > It return 0 even if gnome-screensaver is not running. > The dbus call, however, will cause the gnome-screensaver service being launched. > I don't know the version of gnome-screensaver you're using, but from > the latest code in git, it doesn't not work the way we want. I admit you are right on this one, the DBus autostart seems to have been introduced in April: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-screensaver/commit/?id=47155576403fea9339a1f702e3dc63455b763fb8 They more or less silently changed the behavior of gnome-screensaver-command breaking shell scripts (including one of mine for inhibiting the screensaver while running an application) relying on the previous behavior which was modeled after xscreensaver-command, just lovely. If someone has gnome-screensaver installed and is running another screensaver I don't see any way to tell from a shellscript which one to use now. Looking for a process is just plainly broken and unreliable by principle, e.g. someome might suspend before the session has started gnome-screensaver, see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616225 For lxsession I'd propose to use my script and remove gnome-screensaver-command from the list. If someone wants to use it, it can still be added as an explicit locking command in the config file. Since I find changing the cli silently in a minor version upgrade unacceptable I am also going to file a bug against gnome-screensaver. -- Guido Berhoerster |
From: PCMan <pcm...@gm...> - 2010-09-14 13:48:03
|
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Guido Berhoerster <gui...@be...> wrote: > * PCMan <pcm...@gm...> [2010-09-14 06:56]: >> No, your script didn't do the right thing. >> If gnome-screensaver is not running, gnome-screen-saver-command >> shouldn't be called. >> If you do this, gnome-screen-saver will be launched, but nothing will happen. >> At the same time it's possible that the user is actually running xscreensaver. > > No, running "gnome-screensaver-command -l" without > gnome-screensaver running will print > **Message: Screensaver is not running! > and return exit code 1. This is not the case on my box. It tried to launch gnome-screensaver even if this command failed. I'm using ubuntu 10.04. Please read the source code of gnome-screesaver-command. Is doesn't do what you said. http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-screensaver/tree/src/gnome-screensaver-command.c It exit with code 1 only when you pass wrong arguments, when dbus is not available, and when you query the version number. It return 0 even if gnome-screensaver is not running. The dbus call, however, will cause the gnome-screensaver service being launched. I don't know the version of gnome-screensaver you're using, but from the latest code in git, it doesn't not work the way we want. >> If the user is running xscreensaver, and you call >> gnome-screensaver-command, this will result in gnome-screensaver being >> launched and xscreensaver being bypassed, which is just the wrong >> behavior. >> >> Checking if the screensaver is currently running is necessary. >> Relying on failure of their *-command programs is not a reliable solution. >> That's why your script is not used directly. > > In fact it is the exact opposite, your approach is unportable and > completely broken in different ways. > Firstly, pgrep will happily match the screensaver of any user > which might be logged into the system, it will even match if > somebody is running "vi gnome-screensaver.txt", it is thus > completely unsuitable for the job. Then we need a better way to check it. > Secondly, this check is unnecessary since the exit code of > xscreensaver-command and gnome-screensaver-command will be 1 if > the respective screensaver is not running. > > -- > Guido Berhoerster > |
From: Guido B. <gui...@be...> - 2010-09-14 10:20:05
|
* PCMan <pcm...@gm...> [2010-09-14 06:56]: > No, your script didn't do the right thing. > If gnome-screensaver is not running, gnome-screen-saver-command > shouldn't be called. > If you do this, gnome-screen-saver will be launched, but nothing will happen. > At the same time it's possible that the user is actually running xscreensaver. No, running "gnome-screensaver-command -l" without gnome-screensaver running will print **Message: Screensaver is not running! and return exit code 1. > If the user is running xscreensaver, and you call > gnome-screensaver-command, this will result in gnome-screensaver being > launched and xscreensaver being bypassed, which is just the wrong > behavior. > > Checking if the screensaver is currently running is necessary. > Relying on failure of their *-command programs is not a reliable solution. > That's why your script is not used directly. In fact it is the exact opposite, your approach is unportable and completely broken in different ways. Firstly, pgrep will happily match the screensaver of any user which might be logged into the system, it will even match if somebody is running "vi gnome-screensaver.txt", it is thus completely unsuitable for the job. Secondly, this check is unnecessary since the exit code of xscreensaver-command and gnome-screensaver-command will be 1 if the respective screensaver is not running. -- Guido Berhoerster |
From: Chris H. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-09-14 09:56:54
|
Thanks, I'm running it now :) Chris Harrington ch...@ha... chr...@gm... chr...@so... http://chris.harrington.jp/ http://facebook.com/chrisharrington/ @charringtonjp - English @charrington_ja - Japanese 090-8812-8911 On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:36 PM, PCMan <pcm...@gm...> wrote: > Actually a new branch in the git already has basic theming support, > but it still requires some improvement. > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Chris Harrington > <chr...@gm...> wrote: >> Thanks Martin, >> >> I've uploaded the proposed patch to lxlauncher to sourceforge: >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3065714&group_id=180858&atid=894871 >> >> Thanks in advance to anyone who will review it and provide >> advice/change requests etc. as necessary. >> >> Chris Harrington >> ch...@ha... >> chr...@gm... >> chr...@so... >> http://chris.harrington.jp/ >> http://facebook.com/chrisharrington/ >> @charringtonjp - English >> @charrington_ja - Japanese >> 090-8812-8911 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Martin Bagge / brother >> <br...@bs...> wrote: >>> On 2010-09-13 02:32, Chris Harrington wrote: >>>> If someone could point me in the right direction regarding getting the >>>> code reviewed and (hopefully) committed, I would greatly appreciate >>>> it. >>> >>> I would make a patch of the source available in the patch tracker. >>> Sounds like interesting changes. >>> >>> If you need help with any step in the process just let me or the list know. >>> >>> - git clone git://lxde.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lxde/lxlauncher >>> - cd lxlauncher >>> - apply you code changes >>> - git commit -a >>> - git format-patch >>> - take the files to the patch tracker: >>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=180858&atid=894871 >>> >>> -- >>> brother >>> http://sis.bthstudent.se >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances >> and start using them to simplify application deployment and >> accelerate your shift to cloud computing. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Lxde-list mailing list >> Lxd...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list >> > |
From: PCMan <pcm...@gm...> - 2010-09-14 05:36:20
|
Actually a new branch in the git already has basic theming support, but it still requires some improvement. On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Chris Harrington <chr...@gm...> wrote: > Thanks Martin, > > I've uploaded the proposed patch to lxlauncher to sourceforge: > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3065714&group_id=180858&atid=894871 > > Thanks in advance to anyone who will review it and provide > advice/change requests etc. as necessary. > > Chris Harrington > ch...@ha... > chr...@gm... > chr...@so... > http://chris.harrington.jp/ > http://facebook.com/chrisharrington/ > @charringtonjp - English > @charrington_ja - Japanese > 090-8812-8911 > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Martin Bagge / brother > <br...@bs...> wrote: >> On 2010-09-13 02:32, Chris Harrington wrote: >>> If someone could point me in the right direction regarding getting the >>> code reviewed and (hopefully) committed, I would greatly appreciate >>> it. >> >> I would make a patch of the source available in the patch tracker. >> Sounds like interesting changes. >> >> If you need help with any step in the process just let me or the list know. >> >> - git clone git://lxde.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lxde/lxlauncher >> - cd lxlauncher >> - apply you code changes >> - git commit -a >> - git format-patch >> - take the files to the patch tracker: >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=180858&atid=894871 >> >> -- >> brother >> http://sis.bthstudent.se >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Lxde-list mailing list > Lxd...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list > |
From: PCMan <pcm...@gm...> - 2010-09-14 04:56:06
|
No, your script didn't do the right thing. If gnome-screensaver is not running, gnome-screen-saver-command shouldn't be called. If you do this, gnome-screen-saver will be launched, but nothing will happen. At the same time it's possible that the user is actually running xscreensaver. If the user is running xscreensaver, and you call gnome-screensaver-command, this will result in gnome-screensaver being launched and xscreensaver being bypassed, which is just the wrong behavior. Checking if the screensaver is currently running is necessary. Relying on failure of their *-command programs is not a reliable solution. That's why your script is not used directly. On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Guido Berhoerster <gui...@be...> wrote: > * PCMan <pcm...@gm...> [2010-09-13 19:38]: >> The features mentitioned in this mail is implemanted in "lock" branch now. >> Please test if it works as expected. >> If there are no obvious problems and objections, I'd like to merge it >> to master branch to be included in the latest release of lxsession. >> >> http://lxde.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lxde/lxsession;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/lock > > Please use the script I sent you, it does exactly the same as > yours in 8 instead of 23 lines and it is actually portable. > > -- > Guido Berhoerster > |
From: Chris H. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-09-14 04:21:23
|
Thanks Martin, I've uploaded the proposed patch to lxlauncher to sourceforge: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3065714&group_id=180858&atid=894871 Thanks in advance to anyone who will review it and provide advice/change requests etc. as necessary. Chris Harrington ch...@ha... chr...@gm... chr...@so... http://chris.harrington.jp/ http://facebook.com/chrisharrington/ @charringtonjp - English @charrington_ja - Japanese 090-8812-8911 On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Martin Bagge / brother <br...@bs...> wrote: > On 2010-09-13 02:32, Chris Harrington wrote: >> If someone could point me in the right direction regarding getting the >> code reviewed and (hopefully) committed, I would greatly appreciate >> it. > > I would make a patch of the source available in the patch tracker. > Sounds like interesting changes. > > If you need help with any step in the process just let me or the list know. > > - git clone git://lxde.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lxde/lxlauncher > - cd lxlauncher > - apply you code changes > - git commit -a > - git format-patch > - take the files to the patch tracker: > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=180858&atid=894871 > > -- > brother > http://sis.bthstudent.se > |
From: Guido B. <gui...@be...> - 2010-09-13 18:59:22
|
* PCMan <pcm...@gm...> [2010-09-13 19:38]: > The features mentitioned in this mail is implemanted in "lock" branch now. > Please test if it works as expected. > If there are no obvious problems and objections, I'd like to merge it > to master branch to be included in the latest release of lxsession. > > http://lxde.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lxde/lxsession;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/lock Please use the script I sent you, it does exactly the same as yours in 8 instead of 23 lines and it is actually portable. -- Guido Berhoerster |
From: PCMan <pcm...@gm...> - 2010-09-13 17:38:17
|
The features mentitioned in this mail is implemanted in "lock" branch now. Please test if it works as expected. If there are no obvious problems and objections, I'd like to merge it to master branch to be included in the latest release of lxsession. http://lxde.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lxde/lxsession;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/lock Thank you all. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM, PCMan <pcm...@gm...> wrote: > Hello list, > After lengthy discussions, to solve the issue that lxsession lacks > locking mechanism making "suspend" and "hibernate" insecure, I'll like > to make a conclusion here. > Here is the proposal and I'm going to do this in a separate branch for testing. > > 1. Add two config keys to desktop.conf in [Session] group: > * LockScreen=true/false (default to true to be more secure, but > provide a GUI option somewhere to turn it off) > * LockCommand= (default to empty string) > 2. If LockScreen=false, don't do any locking at all. > If LockCommand is set, use that command for screen locking. > Otherwise, fallback to default locking mechanism > 3. Perform following default locking mechanism proposed in issue > #3030907 if a specific LockCommand is not set. > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3030907&group_id=180858&atid=894871 > Look for usable locking command in this list: > "gnome-screensaver-command --lock", "xscreensaver-command -lock", > "xlock -mode blank". (This list can be expanded later) > 4. If possible, do #3 in a shell script rather than hard coding it in > C source code for easier custimization. > > I believe that this should cover most needs. Is this proposal acceptable? > If there is no objection and no one is working on this issue now, I > want to do it this week. > I'll do it in a separate branch without touching any existing code in > master branch so nothing will be broken. > If after testing it works, we prepare a new release for lxsession. > This may not be the best solution, but at least I should try to fix it. > > Comments and suggestions are welcomed. > |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-09-13 15:24:06
|
On 2010-09-13 02:32, Chris Harrington wrote: > If someone could point me in the right direction regarding getting the > code reviewed and (hopefully) committed, I would greatly appreciate > it. I would make a patch of the source available in the patch tracker. Sounds like interesting changes. If you need help with any step in the process just let me or the list know. - git clone git://lxde.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lxde/lxlauncher - cd lxlauncher - apply you code changes - git commit -a - git format-patch - take the files to the patch tracker: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=180858&atid=894871 -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se |
From: Guido B. <gui...@be...> - 2010-09-13 08:39:18
|
* PCMan <pcm...@gm...> [2010-09-12 10:53]: > Hello list, > After lengthy discussions, to solve the issue that lxsession lacks > locking mechanism making "suspend" and "hibernate" insecure, I'll like > to make a conclusion here. > Here is the proposal and I'm going to do this in a separate branch for testing. > > 1. Add two config keys to desktop.conf in [Session] group: > * LockScreen=true/false (default to true to be more secure, but > provide a GUI option somewhere to turn it off) > * LockCommand= (default to empty string) > 2. If LockScreen=false, don't do any locking at all. > If LockCommand is set, use that command for screen locking. > Otherwise, fallback to default locking mechanism What if LockCommand fails? > 3. Perform following default locking mechanism proposed in issue > #3030907 if a specific LockCommand is not set. > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3030907&group_id=180858&atid=894871 > Look for usable locking command in this list: > "gnome-screensaver-command --lock", "xscreensaver-command -lock", > "xlock -mode blank". (This list can be expanded later) > 4. If possible, do #3 in a shell script rather than hard coding it in > C source code for easier custimization. See attached shell script (assumes that the running screensave is in PATH), although I am not aware of any other locking commands which could be run from an LXDE session. -- Guido Berhoerster |
From: Chris H. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-09-13 00:32:21
|
Hi, I've patched lxlauncher so that the background color can be changed in the /etc/xdg/lxlauncher/settings.conf file. I also made the size of the icons on the notebook tabs adjustable and fixed a warning thrown when lxlauncher is run without a gtkrc file (lxlauncher looks much nicer and integrates with your desktop better without an explicit gtkrc file). I am not a C programmer, but seeing as 1) Many people on many boards have wanted the background color feature 2) The changes are minimal I tried it out as a first time project. Not being familiar with the "standard process" for releasing this, I've gone with what I do know for the time being which is to package it for Ubuntu and release it on my PPA on Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~chris-harrington-jp/+archive/ppa-awaos The tarball without debian package info can be downloaded from https://launchpad.net/~chris-harrington-jp/+archive/ppa-awaos/+files/lxlauncher_0.2.2.orig.tar.gz Note that I haven't actually compiled this tarball, only the patched version that includes debian info, which I've installed and have running on several Ubuntu machines now. No console errors are thrown. Again, though the changes are quite minimal, I'd really like to share this with the community and adopt the app as a C and Gtk+ learning project to improve it further and perhaps even iron out some of the parts needing fixing that PCMan mentions in the source. If someone could point me in the right direction regarding getting the code reviewed and (hopefully) committed, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Chris Harrington ch...@ha... chr...@gm... chr...@so... http://chris.harrington.jp/ http://facebook.com/chrisharrington/ @charringtonjp - English @charrington_ja - Japanese 090-8812-8911 |
From: Christoph W. <chr...@go...> - 2010-09-12 09:51:55
|
Am Mittwoch, den 01.09.2010, 03:51 -0700 schrieb Mario Behling: > Hi, > > I am traveling at the moment. Will look after it at the beginning of > next week. The host has been changed - so the IP needs to be changed > by Andrew. I will sort this out next week. Hi Mario, any progress? Regards, Christoph |
From: PCMan <pcm...@gm...> - 2010-09-12 08:53:58
|
Hello list, After lengthy discussions, to solve the issue that lxsession lacks locking mechanism making "suspend" and "hibernate" insecure, I'll like to make a conclusion here. Here is the proposal and I'm going to do this in a separate branch for testing. 1. Add two config keys to desktop.conf in [Session] group: * LockScreen=true/false (default to true to be more secure, but provide a GUI option somewhere to turn it off) * LockCommand= (default to empty string) 2. If LockScreen=false, don't do any locking at all. If LockCommand is set, use that command for screen locking. Otherwise, fallback to default locking mechanism 3. Perform following default locking mechanism proposed in issue #3030907 if a specific LockCommand is not set. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3030907&group_id=180858&atid=894871 Look for usable locking command in this list: "gnome-screensaver-command --lock", "xscreensaver-command -lock", "xlock -mode blank". (This list can be expanded later) 4. If possible, do #3 in a shell script rather than hard coding it in C source code for easier custimization. I believe that this should cover most needs. Is this proposal acceptable? If there is no objection and no one is working on this issue now, I want to do it this week. I'll do it in a separate branch without touching any existing code in master branch so nothing will be broken. If after testing it works, we prepare a new release for lxsession. This may not be the best solution, but at least I should try to fix it. Comments and suggestions are welcomed. |
From: Globe T. <its...@ya...> - 2010-09-11 13:00:25
|
--- On Sat, 9/11/10, Ikem Krueger <ike...@go...> wrote: > From: Ikem Krueger <ike...@go...> > Subject: Re: [Lxde-list] keybinding with sudo command > To: "Globe Trotter" <its...@ya...> > Date: Saturday, September 11, 2010, 2:30 AM > > sudo /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate > Do you need a password? > Not ostensibly. It is in my sudoers for use without a password, as I mentioned: I wonder if it does not bother checking permissions from the sudoers file. Any suggestions Thanks again! Best, T |
From: Globe T. <its...@ya...> - 2010-09-11 02:36:55
|
Hi, I wanted to know how to use keybinding to call sudo /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate. Note that I have permission to do this without password through the sudoers file and the hibernate works as advertised on the command line. But, I would like to use Ctrl-F12 to invoke this more easily. I put in the following in my .config/openbox/lxde-rc.xml <keybind key="C-F12"> <action name="Execute"> <command>sudo /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate</command> </action> </keybind> What am I doing wrong? I also tried to use xlock -mode blank (basically replaced "sudo /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate" with "xlock -mode blank" in the above) with the same keybinding and it worked fine, i.e. locked the screen. Any help/suggestions? I am using Fedora 13 and the LXDE spin. Best wishes, Trotter |
From: Julien L. <gi...@ub...> - 2010-09-09 20:57:49
|
Le jeudi 09 septembre 2010 à 10:20 +0200, Martin Bagge / brother a écrit : > > What is the verdict? lubuntu? Well, we will not upgrade lxdm to 0.3.0 for the next release, so no test have been made on Lubuntu side. Regards, Julien Lavergne |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-09-09 08:20:57
|
On 2010-08-21 06:07, dgod wrote: > just as the subject > feature freeze, string freeze. Translation round ended some hours ago and the numbers are in. 35 languages are complete 8 languages are missing one string 2 languages are missing two strings 1 language is missing three strings 11 more or less supported languages are not translated at all. I will not tag for release and I will not do a tar upload to SF.net because of the code shape. Andreas today confirmed that git HEAD is working in OpenSUSE but I haven't heard from anyone else in any direction. What is the verdict? lubuntu? dgod? LC done todo ratio af 11 0 100,0% be 11 0 100,0% bg 11 0 100,0% bn_IN 11 0 100,0% ca 11 0 100,0% da 11 0 100,0% de 11 0 100,0% el 11 0 100,0% en_GB 11 0 100,0% es 11 0 100,0% es_VE 11 0 100,0% fa 11 0 100,0% fo 11 0 100,0% fr 11 0 100,0% gl 11 0 100,0% he 11 0 100,0% hr 11 0 100,0% hu 11 0 100,0% id 11 0 100,0% it 11 0 100,0% lt 11 0 100,0% nl 11 0 100,0% pl 11 0 100,0% pt 11 0 100,0% pt_BR 11 0 100,0% ru 11 0 100,0% sk 11 0 100,0% sl 11 0 100,0% sr 11 0 100,0% sr@latin 11 0 100,0% sv 11 0 100,0% tr 11 0 100,0% uk 11 0 100,0% vi 11 0 100,0% zh_CN 11 0 100,0% am 10 1 90,9% ar 10 1 90,9% ast 10 1 90,9% bn 10 1 90,9% cs 10 1 90,9% fi 10 1 90,9% ja 10 1 90,9% km 10 1 90,9% ko 9 2 81,8% ro 9 2 81,8% zh_TW 8 3 72,7% et 0 11 0,0% eu 0 11 0,0% frp 0 11 0,0% ml 0 11 0,0% ms 0 11 0,0% nb 0 11 0,0% nn 0 11 0,0% ps 0 11 0,0% th 0 11 0,0% ur 0 11 0,0% ur_PK 0 11 0,0% -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se |
From: Mitch H. <mit...@sa...> - 2010-09-08 20:38:28
|
Hey All: I've been working with LXDM in SabayonLinux, a Gentoo-based distribution. I'm having troubles starting a Gnome session from LXDM (latest git version). The main Applications menu is not working. We had put together a patch for LXDM-0.2.0 (see attached) to correct this problem which involved adjusting the DESKTOP_SESSION environment variable. However, working with the latest git version, the fix of adjusting the DESKTOP_SESSION environment variable is not working, and the Gnome Applications menu is not working. Is Gnome working OK with the other distributions under the latest git version of LXDM? |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-09-08 11:43:58
|
On 2010-09-01 13:43, Martin Bagge / brother wrote: > On 2010-08-21 06:07, dgod wrote: >> just as the subject >> feature freeze, string freeze. > > Sorry for the late reply on this one. I am in still in post vacation > stress (or something=)). > > What's the status from distribution side? > - Debian? Will not be included. edhunter told on IRC that he had no time to do anything about the test part. > - Fedora? Christoph is swamped with other thins and have not been able to test. > - OpenSuse? andrea told that 0.3.0 is working and I am not too sure about the version numbers there. tried to get a response about the git HEAD but none yet. > How about a week or something similar for translations? LXDM is not the > hardest package to get translated. The translation round will end at 00 UTC tonight and we got a good update in this round. If Andrea just can confirm the state for OpenSUSE I think we could relase at will. I am not sure about the general status of LXDM in Fedora and that might be a deal breaker. The package is not included in Debian the tool chain might be broken and doing testing there is not really necessary at the moment. -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se |
From: Marty J. <mar...@co...> - 2010-09-07 11:53:56
|
Today's Distrowatch has Ubuntu at number 1, Lubuntu at number 10(!), Kubuntu at 22, Xubuntu at 34. The Fedora Spins numbers have LXDE at twice as many as XFCE, and about a third of KDE, which is consistent with the numbers for F12. I don't know a way to access the Gnome Fedora download count. |
From: <u-l...@ae...> - 2010-09-07 10:07:07
|
Hello Klaus, On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:36:50AM +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote: > Could "no screenlocking" be the default, please? I think it's rather > intrusive to forcibly lock out the user from his/her session after > waking up from resume, if the user has not explicitly requested this in > the configuration. I think it is important that the default is "safer". Otherwise the users will hardly think about changing the default and their sessions will be open to anyone who wakes up an unattended computer. It is a way too easy to abuse the physical access if you find yourself at the other user's open session. Illegitimate access to family members' or roommates' computers is not so uncommon, don't let us make it easier. Of course it should be possible to switch off the locking, but only by the user's explicit choice and action. On the other hand the default is probably a "packager's choice" anyway, not so much of the developers? Regards, Rune |
From: Klaus K. <lx...@kn...> - 2010-09-07 09:36:44
|
Hi list, Sorry about the late pickup uf this thread. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 06:37:51PM +0800, PCMan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Guido Berhoerster > <gui...@be...> wrote: > > * PCMan <pcm...@gm...> [2010-08-30 06:11]: > >> Previously I met one of the maintainer of gdm and we had some > >> discussion about this, too. > >> They also use xscreensaver for this purpose in Oracle and there > >> doesn't seem to be a standard way to do this. > >> So my suggestion is making the lock command configurable through > >> config file and fallback to xscreensaver if it's not set. > >> This is not a perfect solution but at least it should work most of the time. > >> For distros which provides alternative locking mechanisms, they can > >> set this lock command to their own specialized script. > >> Then when locking is needed, lxsession calls their script, and their > >> script determines which locking program to use on their own with their > >> distro-specific way, such as update-alternatives used by Debian. > >> Any comments? > >> If there is no objection, I'm willing to do some hacks to add this, > >> and make a release after it gets tested. > > > > I submitted a patch for this about 6 weeks ago but apparently > > nobody has looked at it yet, see > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3030907&group_id=180858&atid=894871 > Thanks for the patch. Recently I subscribe mail notifications for the > trackers on SF.net. SF.net didn't provides this in the past so it's > really hard to follow every newly added tracker item. Now things can > be improved. > > What it does is to go through a list of locking commands until > > one suceeds, i.e. that of the currently running screensaver. > > Currently it tries gnome-screensaver, xscreensaver, and finally > > xlock (in that order). Since there is a limited amount of > > screensavers and this will detect which screensaver is currently > > running it is IMHO a much cleaner solution that what you are > > proposing. It could however be enhanced by adding a switch to > > allow a user to turn locking off. > This kind of auto-detection looks reasonable, but I still think that > this behavior should be the fallback. > IMHO some degree of customization needs to be allowed. Could "no screenlocking" be the default, please? I think it's rather intrusive to forcibly lock out the user from his/her session after waking up from resume, if the user has not explicitly requested this in the configuration. The search for and execution of a locking program should only be done if the user has requested a screenlock by configuration. Regards -Klaus |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-09-06 16:59:08
|
Hi team! I just sent a reminder to some lost translators regarding the LXDM translations. The overall shape looks promising and just 13 languages are in the air between "done" and "not even started" and I really hope they can finish before Wednesday 2400 UTC. The list follows. lang done todo af 11 0 be 11 0 bg 11 0 bn_IN 11 0 ca 11 0 da 11 0 de 11 0 el 11 0 en_GB 11 0 es 11 0 fa 11 0 fo 11 0 fr 11 0 gl 11 0 he 11 0 hr 11 0 id 11 0 it 11 0 lt 11 0 nl 11 0 pl 11 0 pt 11 0 pt_BR 11 0 ru 11 0 sl 11 0 sr 11 0 sr@latin 11 0 sv 11 0 tr 11 0 uk 11 0 vi 11 0 zh_CN 11 0 am 10 1 ar 10 1 ast 10 1 bn 10 1 cs 10 1 fi 10 1 ja 10 1 km 10 1 sk 10 1 hu 9 2 ko 9 2 ro 9 2 zh_TW 8 3 es_VE 0 11 et 0 11 eu 0 11 frp 0 11 ml 0 11 ms 0 11 nb 0 11 nn 0 11 ps 0 11 th 0 11 ur 0 11 ur_PK 0 11 -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-09-04 14:21:04
|
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, PCMan wrote: > 4. File searching utility is added to PCManFM during Google SoC... > 5. GPicView has been rewritten during GSoC... Speaking of GSoC, I noticed at the mentors list that LXDE got two places for the mentors summit. Have you signed up yet and do we have US based person to send for the other spot? -- /brother http://martin.bagge.nu Bruce Schneier taught Chuck Norris how to divide by zero as they stood silent in an elevator. |