Bug#240111: gdm: 2.4.4.7 breaks sessions

[Ryan Murray]

--wHh0aNzodMFDTGdO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This creates breakage; you now have two scripts setting up the session
> > environment, and as they both will perform user mod map entries, this c=
an
> > render the keyboard broken.
>=20
> What are you talking about? The new session scheme doesn't change
> anything about that.

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 looks
like it's not working.

> > 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.

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 make =
it
impossible to use them right now, which is far worse than what you are
suggesting.

> > > Furthermore, if you break packages, you must conflict with the older
> > > versions of those packages, so that GDM is not upgraded until all
> > > packages use the new scheme.
> >=20
> > I don't conflict with them.  I work perfectly well with them, through t=
he
> > default session, if they are what the system Xsession will pick up.
>=20
> This is untrue. Until these packages are upgraded, they won't work
> properly. This means *your* package is *breaking* them. This is

They work perfectly well; I'm using gnome-session right now.  They aren't
in the GDM menu as their own session, but this is up to them to fix, not me
to create a mess so they don't have to.

> expressed by a conflict with the older version.

The package works perfectly well, there is no reason for a conflict.

> the Debian project is not able to understand how to make a smooth
> upgrade path for a package.

I'm quite amazed that people think they have to transition every little cha=
nge,
including changes that will only be visible to unstable.  Especially when t=
he
"transition" will (re)introduce bugs that have been fixed otherwise.

> If *you* change the way it works for *other* packages, you have to
> provide an upgrade path. That's how things usually work in Debian.
> Otherwise, unstable would never be usable.

I have provided the path, packages need to upgrade to use it.  I'm not going
to introduce a "transition" that adds bugs for the time period where these
six packages don't provide a session.

> I haven't received a bug for gnome-session.

Possibly because debian-qa is the maintainer?

--=20
Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (rmurray@cyberhqz.com, rmurray@debian.org)
The opinions expressed here are my own.

--wHh0aNzodMFDTGdO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFAabhoN2Dbz/1mRasRApu4AKCVFkSI7ylovWNQT1HO3/krk49bjQCg3U0H
bXd9yZ8sFX7t65jCvCXbUQ0=
=/uJc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wHh0aNzodMFDTGdO--