Re: GDM and GNOME 2.24.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Frederic Crozat <fcrozat mandriva com> wrote:

>> >> Too bad I wasn't around anymore on Sunday when this was discussed.
>> >> I don't see things this way...
>> >
>> > Could you please share your point of view then?
>> Sorry, forgot to respond to this earlier.
> I might regret this but I have the feeling something is wrong here.
> First, I still don't understand why John is not responding to those
> issues posted on gdm list. It shouldn't be your role to respond for him.

I don't know what you are talking about here. I am not responding for Jon,
I am responding for myself.

>> So, going off Sebastiens list of issues,
>> > * no configuration migration from the previous version (ie people who
>> > use gdm 2.20 and autologin should still have that activated after
>> > upgrade)
>> I am not sure that is true, actually.
>> The new gdm uses the same config file location and format, and the
>> same keys for autologin as the old gdm. I don't see offhand why the
>> new gdm would not just pick up the options from the old gdm, but I
>> have to admit that I haven't tested this. If it doesn't work, it
>> should be an easy fix.
> I checked wiki and some sections of the configuration file are not
> handled :
> -[security] : I'm not sure if it is supposed to be handled by
> ConsoleKit/PolicyKit but there is no explanation how to handle the same
> result as with the old gdm
> -[gui] seems to be ignored / replaced by gconf (no migration help,
> except for documentation key
> -[greeter] is ignored
> -[server] seems to be ignored (since it was used for multi head)
> -[customcommand] is ignored.

Yes, the new gdm has less configuration options than the old one.
That is a good thing, don't you think ?

> autologin is just one aspect of configuration. I've listed others above,
> in the section about configuration files.

What you seem to be totally missing is the question 'what things are
actually useful to configure in a display manager'.

> Sorry if this mail sounds harsh, but I really think we are seeing
> regressions in gdm (and gnome-session is starting to show the exact same
> "coup d'etat" or "fait accompli" pattern) being treated as "not
> important" because there is some sort of agenda (I'm not sure if it is
> "fast user switching") being pushed with small consideration to people
> (or even module co-maintainers) input and fixing those regressions
> doesn't seem to fit in this agenda. I hope to be prove wrong on this.

The 'fait accompli' impression can be helped by participating in
fixing the regressions,
instead of bitching about them. You don't have to make this an
us-vs-them scenario and fling around conspiracy theories about hidden
agendas. I have to admit that I find this attitude a bit



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]