[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#748944: Processed: Re: Processed (with 1 errors): on how lightdm does not like it when /etc/X11/Xsession is not executable

Josip Rodin joy at debbugs.entuzijast.net
Thu Jul 23 08:06:42 UTC 2015

reassign 748944 x11-common
retitle 748944 lightdm relies on the executability of /etc/X11/Xsession, please enforce it

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 08:52:14PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mer., 2015-07-22 at 20:43 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:48:35PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > On mar., 2015-07-21 at 15:20 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > No, startx has also worked on my machine without the executable bit on that
> > > > file. It's lightdm that seems to be depending on something others don't.
> > > 
> > > I had the impression that startx (without argument) would use Xsession.
> > > At least the Xsession file header gives that impression.
> > 
> > On related note, this system executes the ~/.xsession file as a shell
> > script, but it isn't executable :)
> No, see 50x11-common_determine-startup, if it's not executable it'll
> treat it as a shell script and run it through $SHELL (or sh).

That's what I meant, it's effectively the same.

> > > > If this is an actual requirement of some standard, please reassign the bug
> > > > to the owner of the file (x11-common) and have them enforce the standard.
> > > 
> > > It's already done. x11-common ships Xsession with executable bit.
> > 
> > Well, then it shouldn't ship it as a conffile, because that implies they
> > can't maintain the enforcement, as the user is allowed to do all sorts of
> > things to conffiles (and usually expected to).
> Sure, if you remove the executable bit, it won't execute. Isn't what
> you wanted, then?

I have no recollection of actually removing that executable bit for any
actual purpose, and I don't generally go around chmod -x'ing arbitrary files
on my system. I'm thinking it happened through some change of functionality
on an upgrade.

> Anyway, end of discussion for me. It might be entertaining for you, but
> it's time consuming for me.

I assure you that bugs like this aren't entertaining to users - being unable
to access your working environment is usually quite stressful. That I've
made a lighthearted comment should indicate to you that I'm on your side,
probably unlike N unknown lurkers who may have seen the same bug, got pissed
off at what they saw as a useless piece of software, but then never bothered
to tell us.

I've moved it to x11-common.

     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

More information about the Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list