Re: [gdm-list] GDM status.

[Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron Sun COM>]

Ray:

> > Sorry, I didn't see earlier discussion.
> >
> > Does the first possibility need user to specify command line,
> > e.g. "/usr/bin/gnome-session --failsafe"?
> So the conclusion earlier I think was that no one actually uses
> failsafe as a failsafe session, but instead use it as "get a terminal
> up fast" method.

On Solaris, there might still be a perception that Failsafe is needed
since we don't yet have Virtual Terminals.  However, this is changing.
When VT's get added to the Solaris kernel, which should be soon, the
need for failsafe on Solaris could well go away.

However, as you say, the need to "get a terminal up fast" might be a
feature some users really like.

> > Additionally, when I looked into current GDM 2.20, I found Failsafe
> > GNOME and Failsafe Xterm starting CLI was generated in hard-code rather
> > than desktop file. I only find gnome.desktop, there's no
> > failsafe.desktop or xterm.desktop. This way looks not very flexiable to
> > allow distribution to custom.
> Right.  I think we should avoid hard coding again.

If we just want a "bring up a terminal fast" feature, then this would
be perfect, and probably fairly easy to get a .desktop file working with
the existing infrastructure.

If we decide we really want to continue supporting the "failsafe"
feature, then we might need to extend the desktop file spec to
support a "Failsafe=true" option so that we can tell GDM to avoid
running the PreSession, PostSession, and PostLogin scripts, and
also to avoid starting any .profile or other user login scripts.

Brian