On dim., 2012-08-05 at 14:27 +0200, Jonathan Michalon wrote: > Le Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:43:08 +0200, > Yves-Alexis Perez <cor...@debian.org> a écrit : > > Ok, so lightdm and gdm “API”s are not compatible. GDM uses session bus > > while lightdm uses system bus. > > This is exactly whay I tried to say from the beginning ;)
It would have been easier to just say that. > > > > > > > > Ubuntu ships a gdmflexiserver script doing the --system dbus-send > > > > > > > call located > > > > > > > in a directory placed at the beginning of PATH which can be > > > > > > > considered as an > > > > > > > (ugly) workaround. Listening to session bus (if this is standard) > > > > > > > may be better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The script is upstream, but I remove it on purpose. But How could > > > > > > lightdm listen on the session bus, which is owned by the user, > > > > > > afaict. > > > > > > > > > > No idea. But why remove the script, if they think that this is The > > > > > Right Way™ ? > > > > > > > > Because there's no way I'll add /usr/lib/lightdm in $PATH of a user. > > > > > > Didn't know there was such an implication, but I agree this is a good > > > reason. > > > What about a kind of divert ? There is already a dialog asking which DM we > > > prefer, I suppose it may update an alternative alongside modifying the > > > file. > > > > That won't work, see above. > > I don't see how it is related. Imagine: > /usr/bin/flexiserver -> /etc/alternatives/flexiserver > /etc/alternatives/flexiserver -> /usr/bin/gdmflexiserver > -> /usr/lib/lightdm/gdmflexiserver > But that would require changes in all gdmflexiserver callers and gdm itself. > A compromise could be : > /usr/bin/gdmflexiserver -> /etc/alternatives/gdmflexiserver > /etc/alternatives/gdmflexiserver -> /usr/bin/gdmflexiserver.gdm (or > elsewhere) > -> /usr/lib/lightdm/gdmflexiserver > which is hackish but avoids GNOME changes. That still need coordination with gdm packagers (feel free to suggest it). But it needs to be coordinated with the currently running display manager, so at least a slave alternative or something like that. > > > Ok. But then consider lightdm as not supporting user switching :) > > This is what I did, so I will stop bother you with that, and this bug can > remain > as a placeholder for someone with a magic idea to implement. ;) > Nevertheless, thanks for your very fast replies! Yes, lets keep it open as documentation. What's really needed is some upstream coordination (under fd.o umbrella for example) on user switching. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
