indicator-session executes another suspend procedure than gnome-power-manager

Bug #444931 reported by Tormod Volden
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Session Menu
Fix Released
Medium
Ted Gould
indicator-session (Ubuntu)
Fix Released
Medium
Unassigned

Bug 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, 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

Related branches

Revision history for this message
Tormod Volden (tormodvolden) wrote :
description: updated
Revision history for this message
Tormod Volden (tormodvolden) wrote :

In particular I am looking at gpm_screensaver_lock() in src/gpm-screensaver.c vs lock_screen() in src/session-service.c

Revision history for this message
Tormod Volden (tormodvolden) wrote :

If this cleaned up somehow, please consider the fix for bug 45883 also.

Ted Gould (ted)
Changed in indicator-session:
status: New → In Progress
importance: Undecided → Medium
assignee: nobody → Ted Gould (ted)
milestone: none → 0.1.7
Ted Gould (ted)
Changed in indicator-session:
status: In Progress → Fix Committed
Changed in indicator-session (Ubuntu):
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Medium
Ted Gould (ted)
Changed in indicator-session:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
Tormod Volden (tormodvolden) wrote :

You are sure not reimplementing g-p-m inside indicator-session? :)

Revision history for this message
Ted Gould (ted) wrote : Re: [Bug 444931] Re: indicator-session executes another suspend procedure than gnome-power-manager

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 20:36 +0000, Tormod Volden wrote:
> You are sure not reimplementing g-p-m inside indicator-session? :)

Heh, well doing so more than I'd like. But since they decided that they
didn't want to export that functionality anymore, we kinda have to.
Hoping to fix that for the next release. But fixing the security issue
was important for this one.

Revision history for this message
Tormod Volden (tormodvolden) wrote :

The bug number is wrong in the changelog...

Ted, any chance you can sponsor the debdiff in bug 45883 since you are into these things?

Ted Gould (ted)
Changed in indicator-session (Ubuntu):
status: Triaged → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.