Bug#240111: gdm: 2.4.4.7 breaks sessions

[Josselin Mouette]

--=-dhpcNEseTr590upY4LAj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le mar 30/03/2004 =E0 20:11, Ryan Murray a =E9crit :
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > This creates breakage; you now have two scripts setting up the sessio=
n
> > > environment, and as they both will perform user mod map entries, this=
 can
> > > render the keyboard broken.
> >=20
> > What are you talking about? The new session scheme doesn't change
> > anything about that.
>=20
> Existing sessions schemes set up the user environment, including running
> Xmodmap/Xkb, which is also done by the standard Xsession scheme.  If you
> do it twice, people swapping two keys get them double swapped, and it loo=
ks
> like it's not working.

I don't think so. GDM doesn't start the sessions using the standard
Xsession scheme, so there is still a need for these scripts to read
Xmodmap stuff and to start ssh-agent.

> > > We also _aren't_ frozen yet, and the six packages
> > > affected by this can upgrade to do this properly.
> >=20
> > But they will be *broken* until the upgrade.
>=20
> No, they just won't be available as menu options in gdm.  They may still =
be
> the session that gets chosen by Xsession; conflicting with them would mak=
e it
> impossible to use them right now, which is far worse than what you are
> suggesting.

Of course not. It would make a clean upgrade path, instead of breaking
all unstable desktops.

[3 times the same nonsense about having no need to conflicts]

> I'm quite amazed that people think they have to transition every little c=
hange,
> including changes that will only be visible to unstable.  Especially when=
 the
> "transition" will (re)introduce bugs that have been fixed otherwise.

Those changes will also be visible to testing, if you package migrates
before the others. Conflicts are also here to force the packages to
migrate together to testing.

> > I haven't received a bug for gnome-session.
>=20
> Possibly because debian-qa is the maintainer?

Or probably because you hadn't sent it. You reassigned #240991 *after*
sending the mail telling there was no bug report for gnome-session. I
find this to be very rude behavior.
--=20
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

--=-dhpcNEseTr590upY4LAj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAabsvrSla4ddfhTMRAjCcAKCLFF0DvwYUpZUo6IGHPo4XqE6yjgCdE5bM
Y7R8x750DV/e6u+N35B2X/8=
=DFLw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-dhpcNEseTr590upY4LAj--