Re: [gdm-list] Branch update

[Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi kde org>]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:19:27AM -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> One issue that concerns me is with configuration.  Obviously people
> have their systems currently configured to work with KDM or GDM, and
> when we say "we acccept no regressions" does this mean that the new
> display manager should work with whatever configuration the user has
> previously set up with GDM and/or KDM, or is the assumption that users
> distros will simply have to reconfigure the new display manager when
> they make the switch?  I assume so, but we should probably be clear
> about this.
>
i think i made it pretty clear that the configuration is supposed to be
completely up to the frontend (which, by kdm terms, is defined as the
greeter plus the config reader). consequently, this is a non-issue as
far as the common project is concerned.

> As I said in my previous email, I don't feel strongly about what we
> should do here.  However, I am concerned about the implications about
> creating another display manager.
>
this isn't a new display manager. it is a "slightly" refactored gdm
opened for other frontends. as a gnome guy, you should be least
concerned of all possible stakeholders.

> If the new display manager is a different project, then I am unsure
> how we should manage things going forward for GDM. 
>
not at all. the next gdm release just becomes xdgdm/gnome.

on the release management part ... it is way simpler if one doesn't
actually strive for a common xdgdm executable and compatible frontends
that can be switched at any time. instead, the backend would contain
some #ifdefs to be compiled into gdm/kdm/xdm/foodm. major rework would
have to be done on branches, so every subproject could at any time just
branch off trunk and make a release of its own.
then you could still release "gdm" and your above question would become
meaningless.

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.