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

Re: fvwm95 gratuitously reconfigures system

Thanks for your input on this topic.  I, personally think that fvwm95
should make itself the default window manager, since anyone (in my
expierence) who wants another window manager is already an experienced
unix user, and is happy to edit the /etc/X11/window-managers file.

I'm not directly advocating making fvwm95 the 'official Debian window
manager', but seeing an opportunity to reduce the number of questions
at install time, at relatively little cost.  Anyway, read on, since
I'm not following my personal opinion on this matter :)

>>>>> "RK" == Richard Kettlewell <richard@greenend.org.uk> writes:

    RK> Kenneth MacDonald writes:
    >> You complained that fvwm95 makes itself the default window
    >> manager for the system upon installation (by making itself
    >> first in /etc/X11/window-managers)
    >> I propose the following behaviour...
    >> First install: fvwm95 becomes default window manager

    RK> That still overrides a system adminstrator's previous
    RK> decisions about what to make the default window manager.  This
    RK> behaviour assumes that the fvwm95 package maintainer knows
    RK> better than I how I should run my system, clearly not the case
    RK> - it's my computer!

Are you advocating a question in the postinst, or just tagging on the
end of the list of installed window managers?  I will add a question,
since the documentation for the xbase package states...

  * the default scripts run the first valid window manager in the file
    /etc/X11/window-managers; window manager packages are expected to offer
    the user the opportunity to make that window manager the default. This
    file is ignored if users create their own .xsession files.

    >> Upgrade: fvwm95 doesn't alter /etc/X11/window-managers Removal:
    >> fvwm95 line is removed from /etc/X11/window-managers

    RK> These two seem more sensible.

Yes, these are the current behaviour.

Best wishes,


Reply to: