Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:25 PM, seth vidal
<skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> what has upstream gnome said about using other lm to start gnome?
My guess is that most of them would probably agree it's worth fixing
bugs involved in interacting with kdm. But hostility to adding more
to that set is likely to increase fast.
Anyways how about this proposal as something we could likely achieve
rough consensus on: Integrating any package which requires nontrivial
changes in affected software[1] requires a Feature page, and that
feature requires the rough consensus of the maintainers of the
affected software.
[1] I don't mean Requires: but how the software works at runtime
I'm both +1 and -1 on this. Reading it literally I think I could agree
with it. However, if you expect it to be able to keep new display
managers out of Fedora then there's too much subtext that I don't agree
with.
In other words, if I get mydm into Fedora and GNOME programs won't run
once I've logged in via it, they don't technically need to be adapted so
a literal reading could say that this doesn't apply.
OTOH, if it turns out that GNOME programs don't work because they
hardcode a requirement on a specific gnome program when another program
can and does provide that interface in mydesktop, then fixing the GNOME
programs could certainly be a Feature worth talking about.
Linux isn't about choice; but choice can be a feature. And I think that
it's a feature that Fedora currently and in the past has promoted. We
have KDE and xfce and lxde now. We have a multiplicity of possible
spins. We have yum and apt and smart. If choice is not a feature that
we want to be a part of our future, then it has to be put to the Board
and the other contributors to decide if we will be a stronger community
with more focus but less diversity.
If it is a feature we want, then interoperability of login manager and
desktop environments is something that falls under that goal -- as
sticky as it may be to work on the problem.
-Toshio