[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: GDM Suggestion

On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 01:04, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> <snip>
> We were just trying to keep switchdesk working (I think this is a Red
> Hat patch to gdm), there was some elaborate rationale. There seemed to
> be some recent sentiment to just delete switchdesk and use the upstream
> gdm method.
> Havoc

Seemed as in not any more or seemed as in you guys (Red Hat) are in the
process of deciding whether to switch to upstream method? Maybe adding
this back into GDM would help with bugs like the following no?
So, what was this "elaborate rationale" for keeping Red Hat's patch for
using switchdesk? With switchdesk, I have never been able to add another
WM to it's GUI (the ones in there are hardcoded?) but have been able to
get an entry for it in the GDM session screen. Therefore, if there was
an "Make default" on the GDM session screen, this should mean I could
make the new WM permanent.

"Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?"
 - Bob Young on the benefits of the open source development model.
mhelios - www.fedoraforum.org 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]