On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 07:47 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> The only reason I see for considering light-locker are doubts about
> xscreensaver's upstream's mental stability. Which is not a blocker for a
> piece of free software, as if a conflict escalates, we can fork it as
> yscreensaver immediatel
Besides not obeying the preferences of an user who already has a better
alternative (xscreensaver) installed, I don't think light-locker is in a
shape good enough to be the default. Perhaps even to be included in
stretch.
It fails in nasty ways when the session has been started via anything but
l
2 matches
Mail list logo
