| 2009-10-06 21:39:08 |
Tormod Volden |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2009-10-06 21:39:08 |
Tormod Volden |
attachment added |
|
Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33169718/Dependencies.txt |
|
| 2009-10-06 21:39:08 |
Tormod Volden |
attachment added |
|
XsessionErrors.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33169719/XsessionErrors.txt |
|
| 2009-10-06 21:45:09 |
Tormod Volden |
description |
Binary package hint: indicator-session
indicator-session (0.1.5-0ubuntu1) included:
* Better locking of the screensaver (LP: #428115)
which does partly what the gpm_control_suspend() does in gnome-power-manager. But they do not handle the screensaver the same way. gpm has for instance added tweaks to make sure it is not suspended before the screensaver has finished fading and locked the screen.
My observation is that when I press the suspend key, gpm does the job, and screen is locked. When I use the indicator-session, I don't see if the screensaver has started, and it is not there on resume (this is already reported in a bug).
I would think the ideal way is that everything follows the same path as much as possible, so that one piece is responsible for doing the whole procedure right in all situations. So for instance indicator-session would tell gpm to run its suspend procedure.
ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
Date: Tue Oct 6 23:27:47 2009
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
Package: indicator-session 0.1.6-0ubuntu1
ProcEnviron:
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-12.39-generic
SourcePackage: indicator-session
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-12-generic i686 |
Binary package hint: indicator-session
indicator-session (0.1.5-0ubuntu1) included:
* Better locking of the screensaver (LP: #428115)
which does partly what the gpm_control_suspend() does in gnome-power-manager. But they do not handle the screensaver the same way. gpm has for instance added tweaks to make sure it is not suspended before the screensaver has finished fading and locked the screen.
My observation is that when I press the suspend key, gpm does the job, and screen is locked. When I use the indicator-session, I don't see if the screensaver has started, and it is not there on resume (this is already reported, like in bug 428115).
I would think the ideal way is that everything follows the same path as much as possible, so that one piece is responsible for doing the whole procedure right in all situations. So for instance indicator-session would tell gpm to run its suspend procedure.
ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
Date: Tue Oct 6 23:27:47 2009
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
Package: indicator-session 0.1.6-0ubuntu1
ProcEnviron:
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-12.39-generic
SourcePackage: indicator-session
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-12-generic i686 |
|
| 2009-10-07 17:19:10 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:~ted/indicator-session/better-locking |
|
| 2009-10-07 17:22:23 |
Ted Gould |
bug task added |
|
indicator-session |
|
| 2009-10-07 17:22:41 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session: status |
New |
In Progress |
|
| 2009-10-07 17:22:46 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session: importance |
Undecided |
Medium |
|
| 2009-10-07 17:22:50 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session: assignee |
|
Ted Gould (ted) |
|
| 2009-10-07 17:23:55 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session: milestone |
|
0.1.7 |
|
| 2009-10-07 22:20:02 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session: status |
In Progress |
Fix Committed |
|
| 2009-10-07 22:20:12 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session (Ubuntu): status |
New |
Triaged |
|
| 2009-10-07 22:20:16 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session (Ubuntu): importance |
Undecided |
Medium |
|
| 2009-10-07 22:20:20 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:indicator-session |
|
| 2009-10-08 15:17:34 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session: status |
Fix Committed |
Fix Released |
|
| 2009-10-10 14:32:39 |
Ted Gould |
indicator-session (Ubuntu): status |
Triaged |
Fix Released |
|
