On 03/13/2011 10:31 PM, Craig Sanders wrote: > reopen 613491 > thanks > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 02:54:12PM +0000, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On -10/01/37 20:59, Craig Sanders wrote: >>> reopen 613491 >>> thanks >> >> Reopening RM bugs is pointless... we can't remove a package twice :) > > the point is that it shouldn't have been removed. > > undo, rather than redo.
removals are not undone, though you're free to upload a new revision as already indicated. >>> gdm3 is NOT an adequate replacement for gdm. useful features that are >>> readily apparent and easily configurable in gdm are either missing >>> completely or hidden in gdm3. >> >> File bugs (ideally upstream). > > pointless. gnome's obsession with over-simplification of software is > exceeded only by their refusal to see any other POV, their willingness > to censor/delete bug reports that point out the problems caused by their > short-sighted decisions and ban from their bugzilla people who submit > them. So why do you expect its packagers to fork or take over upstream of gdm? >>> OK, the actual issues here are Gnome's fault but prematurely removing >>> gdm from debian is debian's fault. >> >> No, it's not. > > yes it is. was there any actual need to remove gdm? it has existed in > the debian repository alongside gdm3 for ages. it doesn't conflict with > the current gnome libs (it's still installed and working on systems > built before gdm was removed). There is no upstream anymore... >> You have three options. Fork gdm, become upstream for it, and get it >> packaged. > > why should that be necessary? gdmm still works, there was no need to remove > it. Security support as a start. >> Help improve gdm3. > > impossible. would conflict with the gnome obsession with over-simplification > and cretinisation of software. > >> Or switch to something else. > > what else? > > kdm? i don't want to have all the kde libraries running as well as the gnome > libraries just to have a login screen. > > xdm, or wdm? ancient - are they even maintained upstream any more? do > they offer a choice of window manager and/or session manager at login > time? > > slim? that's even more minimalist than gdm3. > > so your suggestion to work around the fact that gdm3 is an inadequate > replacement > for gdm is to use some other inadequate replacement for gdm. Maybe they are willing to improve to the point where gdm was? > i prefer option four: submit a bug report to debian saying that the removal of > gdm from debian was a mistake and should be reversed. Which is pointless unless you find someone that wants to take over upstream. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
