Re: [gdm-list] GDM status.

["simon zheng sun com" <Simon Zheng Sun COM>]

Hi Ray and Jon,

What about other features mentioned by Brian? The following are useful
when distribution wants to custom login window. 

+ The GDM daemon does not support any configuration. In old
GDM, /usr/share/gdm/default.conf has a lot of configuration. And new GDM
uses gconf to store configuration, right? Could we review and decide
what configurations are worth to keeping in new GDM?

+ gdmsetup is not yet supported. It's a good GUI to allow administrator
to modify login window style.

+ gdmgreeter XML style themes are not supported. Do we have counterpart
to allow distribution to custon their theme?  

Shall we complete them before GNOME 2.24?

Thanks,
-Simon

On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 13:41 -0400, Ray Strode wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > 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.
> 
> So yea, the user would input something like
> "xterm" or "gnome-terminal" but not normally "/usr/bin/gnome-session --failsafe"
> 
> > If yes, I prefer the second one. Usually user can't make sure what's correct command. Shipping a
> > failsafe.desktop or xterm.desktop looks better.
> Well, the only people who will use this feature are those who know
> what commands to type.
> 
> I agree though, the distro shipped desktop file seems better.  It has
> the nice property that there won't be a hard coded item added to the
> session list.
> That kind of item defeats the "don't show a list at all if there is
> only one choice" code that's there now.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> --Ray