[Debian-olpc-devel] Should the sugar package provide the x-session-manager alternative?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Petter,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:24:08AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>One thing that occur to me when testing the Sugar environment in
>Lenny, is that it need a better integration into the login and startup
>process.

Thanks for bringing this up.


>One way to do it, would be to let the sugar package provide
>the x-session-manager alternative.  I've tested this by adding a
>symlink from /usr/bin/x-session-manager to sugar, and with this change
>I can log in using kdm and get suger started automatically.  I can
>also run startx and get sugar started automatically.
>
>Is there any reason not to let the sugar package provide an
>x-session-manager alternative?
>
>An alternative would be to provide the x-window-manager alternative
>instead.  I guess it is a matter of taste which one of these fit sugar
>best.

Sugar is usable as both.  And should somehow provide both, I believe.

The reason I have not done it already is (not taking the time to look 
properly at it, and) that I want the most flexibility in the packages.

Sugar can run inside Xephyr, but in some environments (e.g. on an XO) 
that is unwanted.  Similarly running as a local desktop might 
inconvenience others (e.g. a diskless server that should not also run an 
X11 client).

Currently Xephyr is recommended and I believe the 
/usr/share/xsession/sugar.desktop file is the freedesktop.org-compliant 
way of registering as a desktop manager.

I imagine src:sugar providing two additional binary packages, sugar-x11 
and sugar-virtual (and perhaps a third, sugar-remote, for tight 
integration with LTSP?).  The -x11 package could then include the XDG 
desktop-manager file, and register in other ways as both Window Manager 
and Desktop manager, while the -virtual package could perhaps be 
enhanced to provide an XO template for Xoo.  The core sugar package 
would then recommend not xephyr directly but these "implementation 
packages" - favoring the -x11 one over -virtual.

How does that sound?

Do you see a problem in (the -x1 package) registering as *both* Window 
Manager and (in Debian non-XDG way) as Desktop Manager?



>PS: I am not on the list, please CC me.

Done.

Could you be persuaded to subscribe? :-)


  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknTKosACgkQn7DbMsAkQLgWKQCfX8jAgFD5PSmkEsLkE/sXCvGz
ECoAnR1zoxA3XGB5omyWgZ/Zp6JlmTiU
=Brja
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----