Bug#858843: systemd: Default value of LidSwitchIgnoreInhibited should be no

2017-03-27 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 27.03.2017 um 21:27 schrieb Martin Monperrus: >> How exactly do they compete for the "lid closed" event? > > Both try to perform an action. If they are the same, say suspend, you just > have a warning. If they > are different, you don't really understand what and why one or the other > happen

Bug#858843: systemd: Default value of LidSwitchIgnoreInhibited should be no

2017-03-27 Thread Martin Monperrus
> How exactly do they compete for the "lid closed" event? Both try to perform an action. If they are the same, say suspend, you just have a warning. If they are different, you don't really understand what and why one or the other happens. > I was under the impression, that XFCE nowadays uses lo

Bug#858843: systemd: Default value of LidSwitchIgnoreInhibited should be no

2017-03-27 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 27.03.2017 um 17:17 schrieb Martin Monperrus: > Package: systemd > Version: 232-19 > Severity: minor > > Dear Maintainer, > > What's the problem? > systemd and xfce4-power-manager compete to handle event "lid closed", this > yields confusing behavior and error messages. How exactly do they co

Bug#858843: systemd: Default value of LidSwitchIgnoreInhibited should be no

2017-03-27 Thread Martin Monperrus
Package: systemd Version: 232-19 Severity: minor Dear Maintainer, What's the problem? systemd and xfce4-power-manager compete to handle event "lid closed", this yields confusing behavior and error messages. What's the solution? ignore inhibited messages, as done for other events, the default val