GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 625374
screensaver can't be interrupted once fade begins
Last modified: 2010-10-20 03:50:28 UTC
This bug was reported on LaunchPad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-screensaver/+bug/595555 Once the Screensaver begins the process of fading out, it no longer will be interrupted by input. Steps to reproduce: 1) Wait until the screensaver begins to fade. 2) Try moving the mouse or typing. Excepted results: The screensaver should be interrupted, and the screen should be prevented from locking. Actual results: The input is ignored.
Tim Taiwanese Liim posted two fixes which solve this problem in redhat's bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612620
Alright, so it sounds like this is an X issue and not a gnome-screensaver issue. I'm going to close this report out.
*** Bug 627699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 594082 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 628941 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Ray, did you open an Xorg report for this bug? If so, what is the bug number? Otherwise I could create it. Thank you.
Maybe we no longer need to open an Xorg bug for this; in [1] Adam Jackson (owner of this Xsync issue) stated: Fixed in 1.9.0 So maybe everything will be fine when we move to Xorg 1.9.0 (my F13 has 1.8.2). On the other hand, Chris [2] disagrees with my proposed fix [3] (my honor to be mentioned by Hannes in Comment #1), that the Xsync definition is correct and should not be changed [2]. Chris also stated in [2] Gnome-screensaver is separately broken; they shouldn't be setting a positive & negative transition trigger with the same threshold. There's a patch on the upstream GNOME bug for that. My view [4] is that the Xsync definition is inconsistent between positive/negative transition, so we should make the definitions consistent; this happens to fix this bug625374. Either way, the analysis in [5] is still valid. So what approach did Adam take when he said "Fixed in 1.9.0?" No idea, but I tend to believe (or hope) he will make the right choice. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612620#c41 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612620#c37 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612620#c27 [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612620#c38 [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612620#c21
There is way too much back and forth on that bug for me to follow. And since this bug is closed. If Chris? thinks that the code in gnome-screensaver is broken could you or he please file a separate bug and explain why. Thanks for your help with this btw.
William, You are very welcome! I tried to help from the side, but you guys did the heavy lifting, so my thanks to you for providing us the good stuff. > There is way too much back and forth on that bug for me to > follow. Agree with you, I am lost at times. I don't know which patch it was when Chris said "There's a patch on the upstream GNOME bug for that." My take is, now that Adam said "Fixed in 1.9.0," let's wait till we have Xorg 1.9.0. If everything works, we are happy. If not, we know where to look.
The gnome-screensaver code isn't broken, but the gnome-session code *is*. That's https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627903 .
Re: Comment #10 I have different opinion: neither gnome-screensaver nor gnome-session is broken. Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612620#c49 for argument.