[ The conversation quoted below took place on debian-mentors; I'm ]
[ moving it over to debian-x, where it probably belongs at this point. ]
[ Please honor the M-F-T accordingly, even if your client doesn't do so ]
[ automagically. ]
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:41:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:49:34AM -0300, Bruno Barrera C. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 11:32 -0200, Leo "Costela" Antunes wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This could be a wishlist bug for X.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Goswin wrote:
> >>
> >> "PS: I talked to Branden Robinson about this a long time ago and he
> >> wasn't intrested in providing this in Xfree86 directly."
> >>
> >> IMHO, this should be discussed again with the X Strike Force since I
> >> really don't think that users must install this package to change this
> >> feature.
> >
> > Perhaps the real answer is that the X core packages should be providing
> > these scripts as an alternative, directly. It isn't "none", it's "the
> > default X session management".
> >
> > Disclaimer: I may be a member of the XSF, but I have not dug into the
> > x-session-manager stuff any time recently, nor do I presume to speak for
> > any opinion but my own.
>
> If you can convince the rest of the XSF to do this I would be
> thrilled. That installing galeon always takes over the x-session
> management has anoyed me for years now and having a seperate package
> for something so trivial is suboptimal.
>
> You could probably stick the shell code that gets executed when no
> x-session-manager is found into a x-default-session-manager script,
> provide that as alternative and always call x-session-manager then.
For context, the topic is how x-session-manager stuff is handled, and the
desire for a "don't invoke one even if it's found" method. My alternative
proposal was to make the code that currently gets run if no xsm is present
into a low-priority xsm of it's own that is guaranteed to be present, and
would allow all xsm invocations to be handled via the alternatives system
(thus, if a local admin wanted to never run the Gnome or KDE or whatever
session managers, they would manually select the alternative provided by
the X packages, overriding the automatic priority selection).
XSF members: what say you? Am I missing some good technical reason things
are as they are, or is this something which should be (or already has been,
and I missed it) set up as a wishlist/minor bug against the X packages, and
resolved as soon as someone has time/patches/etc?
Branden, if the statement attributed to you is accurate, does it still
apply to this proposal? If not accurate, could you expound upon your
reasoning so that it can be evaluated and applied in a current context?
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature