On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Package: xdm,gdm,kdm > Severity: normal > > xdm, gdm, and kde all ask the shared/default-x-display-manager at high > priority. Debconf policy is that high priority is for items that don't > have a reasonable default. Right. > I think that as long as any of xdm, gdm, or kdm is the default, that > qualifies as a reaonable default display manager; each of them is usable. You clearly don't share my expectations of the kinds of bug reports I'll get if I dare to "make xdm the default", eschewing the obviously superior {gdm,kdm,wdm}. The other package maintainers will likewise get similar mail. Display manager selection is one of the things holy wars are launched over. In my opinion, there is no reasonable default because a vocal portion of our userbase will not be reasonable about the subject. > If there's some alternatives-style ranking going on to rank more usable > display managers higher and make them more likely to be the default, > that's even better. I'm open to suggestions for a schema. > Anyway, right now an install of debian with gdm and kdm asks which to > use, even at high priority, and I think that's an unnecessary question > to ask for a high priority install. I'm sympathetic to your goal, but the display manager makes a significant first impression. Leaving the selection to chance doesn't seem like a good idea, as it will make the Debian install experience inconsistent. Users will get the idea that the display manager is chosen at random. xdm is less featureful (and less pretty) than the others, but I reckon it will end up being the default slighly more often than the others because dpkg will unpack it last. Or we could work the default the other way, and the first display manager installed becomes the one that sticks, which would favor gdm. Unless the more elaborate library dependencies of gdm, kdm, and wdm affect the unpacking order, in which case... Hopefully you get my point. I don't think we'd accept leaving the default MTA to chance on a Debian box even though they are all "usable". Why should we apply different reasoning to the display manager issue? I would appreciate further insights from you, and any interested folks reading this message. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Yeah, that's what Jesus would do. branden@debian.org | Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature