Bug#251953: gnome-settings-daemon not in default PATH

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

Hi,

 it seems to me that you and Marc are more interested (not to say "dead
 set") in not having a bug marked "critical" than in actually solving
 the bug.  And besides you two guys (and myself of course), only
 Josselin expressed an opinion on this matter.

 After digging around in the (very scarce) documentation and looking at
 CVS entries, I find nothing that supports your position that
 gnome-settings-daemon is not to be run by the user (IOW, I'm doing your
 homework).  When the change was committed the corresponding entry
 amounts to something like "move from bindir to libexecdir".  libexecdir
 is documented as "the directory for installing executables that other
 programs run", so, yes, the person who committed the change shares your
 view, but without stating why, this is worthless.

 Furthermore, if you recall I asked you for a portable way of finding
 where this program is installed -- and I said that that would be an
 acceptable solution for this bug.  You conveniently just ignored this
 request.

 AFAICT your position is basically "upstream is right, you are not".

 > >  I beg your pardon?  You don't agree with the bug but you don't
 > >  want to have a discussion either?
 > 
 > We already had a discussion

 Oh, we did?  Thanks for letting me know.  The funny thing is I hardly
 saw any _arguments_ coming from you.

 > and we have different opinion on what is the g-s-d and what it should
 > do, so let's waiting for an upstream advice

 Has anything come out of that yet?

 > >  Ignoring my requests isn't going to change them.
 > 
 > Are you asserting that you're right and that we should just do what
 > you said ?

 I'm asserting that I have reported a bug which you have downgraded,
 closed, reopened, and assigned some severity at whim that better suits
 you without actually addressing the bug itself nor actually supporting
 your position with anything beyond "upstream is doing it this way".
 You haven't even provided a reason for sticking to upstream's position
 with such zealotry.

 > You don't have to request actions, you've reported a bug, several
 > people disagree on it so let's wait a consensus before taking
 > decision.

 Several being you and Marc Dequènes.

 > > Go fish the GNOME API docs.  I can't find a documented way for a
 > > program that _needs_ gnome-settings-daemon to be running to start
 > > it.  
 > 
 > And have you find a documentation saying tha g-s-d is an user land
 > software ?

 Have you found anything that says it isn't?

 Since in previous releases it was installed in /usr/bin, that _made_ it
 a program which was intended to be run by the user.  A mistake?  Tough
 luck.  There's such a thing as "backwards compatibility" which we
 happen to regard highly in this Project -- or at least that used to be
 the case.

 Upstream can start by cleaning all the crap that it installs in
 /usr/bin that doesn't have any documentation whatsoever or which is
 used "internally by libraries" -- things with wonderfully generic names
 such as loadshlib and dns-helper come to mind, or stuff like
 gnome_segv.

 > >  What I am saying is that if I _have_ to start this thing for
 > >  Epiphany
 > 
 > That's the point, we don't have to ...

 I am sorry, but...  can't you read?

 I _have_ to.

 I don't actually care who "we" is, but presumably you mean people who
 use "gnome-session".  I don't.  I don't need that program.  I don't
 care for session management.  I am _fine_ without session management.
 I have looked at it and I don't need that functionality.  I don't work
 like that.

 Can you understand that?

 Tell me _why_ I have to use gnome-session to use Epiphany, Abiword,
 Planner or gpdf (which is the actual list of stuff that I use that
 seems to want to have gnome-settings-daemon running to be configurable)

 > >  on the browser window.  Now, how exactly am I _not_ running GNOME?  Is
 > >  it the panel that I don't use?  I though GNOME was about a network
 > >  object model environment, not about a silly panel.
 > 
 > no need of panel to run session ...

 *sigh*

 You can't understand English, can you?

 Tell me what do I have to _run_ to be entitled to say that "I'm running
 GNOME".

 > >       4.2  /usr/bin : Most user commands
 > 
 > "user" commands

 Yes.  So?

 > >  That's included by Debian Policy.  And breaking it is "serious".
 > 
 > Are you going to fill RC bug for all stuffs not need in the path and
 > staying in /usr/lib ?

 Actually, yes, I'm thinking about filing bugs against all the crap
 that's in /usr/bin which shouldn't be there in the first place and,
 given the lack of documentation, is impossible for a user to actually
 _use_.

 But I still don't see how gnome-settings-daemon falls into that
 category.

 > BTW this discussion is going nowhere, you're using again and again
 > the same arguments,

 Because you don't seem to be able to understand them.  It was the same
 with Christian.  You had to say the same thing twenty times before he
 actually bothered to read what you were saying.

 And besides that, you are providing none.

 > I've understood them

 Doesn't seem like that to me, since you aren't providing any counter
 arguments.

 > and we don't agree on what's supposed to do the settings-daemon and
 > what's broken or not.  Please continue this on bugzilla we will stay
 > to upstream advice.

 If you _bother_ to provide an URL to the relevant bug I'll follow it.

 Marcelo