Created attachment 5709 add lightdm and light-locker support I'm aware of this bug report: https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217 But it's scope is much larger than my proposal. This request is just for basic support for lightdm's built-in dm-tool and optional light-locker daemon.
dm-tool lock is not safe, it'll actually just switch to the greeter, and won't report back if nothing locked the screen.
@Yves-Alexis Perez (Comment 1): I know. I'm not saying it's good, i'm asking for xflock4 to support it, not pass judgement on it. Anyways if it's considered an issue to the point where it's not acceptable for commit, can we at least get just the light-locker support? I'm already running this patch in Manjaro's xfce4-session manager package (in Unstable and Testing branches) and we are shipping LightDM+light-locker on the upcoming installation media. It's plenty easy for us to just keep patching it in, would just be nice if it be accepted here upstream.
(In reply to Rob McCathie from comment #2) > @Yves-Alexis Perez (Comment 1): > > I know. I'm not saying it's good, i'm asking for xflock4 to support it, not > pass judgement on it. The thing is, I don't think it should be used at all. The whole point of xflock4 is to lock the screen (or return an error if it can't). You can't know who will call xflock4 and wether it's safe or not to not lock and don't return an issue. That's why I think dm-tool lock should not be used in a script, but only directly called by an user.
(In reply to Yves-Alexis Perez from comment #3) > (In reply to Rob McCathie from comment #2) > > @Yves-Alexis Perez (Comment 1): > > > > I know. I'm not saying it's good, i'm asking for xflock4 to support it, not > > pass judgement on it. > > The thing is, I don't think it should be used at all. The whole point of > xflock4 is to lock the screen (or return an error if it can't). You can't > know who will call xflock4 and wether it's safe or not to not lock and don't > return an issue. > > That's why I think dm-tool lock should not be used in a script, but only > directly called by an user. Ok, so, how about just light-locker? (the first hunk of the patch only).
See also bug #11324.
Any news on this one? It is more than four years old now...
@Christian Hesse: This bug is obsolete as any distribution can set their default locker easily by setting the /general/LockCommand property in the xfce4-session channel of xfconf (it's integrated in xflock4). Users who switch to a different lockscreen can consequently also easily fix this. It's arguably not a very discoverable feature, but changing the default lockscreen of a distribution is also not a very every-day "normal" operation imo. The main reason - from my point of view - xflock4 was still extended by distros with patches was because they had a default locker that was not in the list.
*** Bug 12415 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The command to lock the screen is light-locker-command -l