Re: fvwm95 gratuitously reconfigures system
Kenneth MacDonald writes:
>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.
You've completely missed the point.
fvwm95 will make itself the default window manager *even when the
system adminstrator has already set a default window manager*.
It is this that I suggest is wrong. It's nothing to do with the
backdoor attempt to make fvwm95 the default window manager everywhere.
>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 :)
Your policy will do more than make fvwm96 the "official Debian window
manager", it will also retroactively reconfigure computers owned by
people who have made other choices.
>>>>>> "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...
I don't really care how it's done, as long as it doesn't silently
override my own decisions. Why not just append it to the end of the
list?
--
Richard Kettlewell http://www.elmail.co.uk/~richard/
Reply to: