Hi all.
I know that LXDM might be more directly related to LXDE, but it seems that LightDM is a reasonable, well maintained alternative.
Do you think it could be an option to use LightDM instead of LXDM for the LXDE spin?
Greets Marcus
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components (eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place), but I wonder why you think that getting LightDM as the display manager would make a major difference?
Of course, I do not know what issues arise in maintaining a DM. Maybe they are the biggest part of the DE?
Ranjan
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:57:45 -0400 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Hi all.
I know that LXDM might be more directly related to LXDE, but it seems that LightDM is a reasonable, well maintained alternative.
Do you think it could be an option to use LightDM instead of LXDM for the LXDE spin?
Greets Marcus _______________________________________________ lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
Dear Ranjan
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components (eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place), but I wonder why you think that getting LightDM as the display manager would make a major difference?
I don't know the ssh flaw you mentioned. If you want me to take a look at it, please link the BZ.
Concerning LightDM: it has some advantages over LXDM and is as mentioned, well maintained. I am not sure about the memory footprint, but I guess it should be at least as light as LXDM.
Greets Marcus
Of course, I do not know what issues arise in maintaining a DM. Maybe they are the biggest part of the DE?
Ranjan
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:57:45 -0400 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Hi all.
I know that LXDM might be more directly related to LXDE, but it seems that LightDM is a reasonable, well maintained alternative.
Do you think it could be an option to use LightDM instead of LXDM for the LXDE spin?
Greets Marcus _______________________________________________ lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
Dear Marcus,
Thanks very much for volunteering! Here is the BZ:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:46:24 +0200 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Dear Ranjan
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components (eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place), but I wonder why you think that getting LightDM as the display manager would make a major difference?
I don't know the ssh flaw you mentioned. If you want me to take a look at it, please link the BZ.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820514
Concerning LightDM: it has some advantages over LXDM and is as mentioned, well maintained. I am not sure about the memory footprint, but I guess it should be at least as light as LXDM.
Thanks! What about SLiM (the original DM of LXDE) as another alternative?
Best wishes, Ranjan
Greets Marcus
Of course, I do not know what issues arise in maintaining a DM. Maybe they are the biggest part of the DE?
Ranjan
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:57:45 -0400 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Hi all.
I know that LXDM might be more directly related to LXDE, but it seems that LightDM is a reasonable, well maintained alternative.
Do you think it could be an option to use LightDM instead of LXDM for the LXDE spin?
Greets Marcus _______________________________________________ lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
Hi again.
Thanks very much for volunteering! Here is the BZ:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:46:24 +0200 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Dear Ranjan
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components (eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place), but I wonder why you think that getting LightDM as the display manager would make a major difference?
I don't know the ssh flaw you mentioned. If you want me to take a look at it, please link the BZ.
This should also be fixed by switching to LightDM. At least it works fine here.
Greets Marcus
Concerning LightDM: it has some advantages over LXDM and is as mentioned, well maintained. I am not sure about the memory footprint, but I guess it should be at least as light as LXDM.
Thanks! What about SLiM (the original DM of LXDE) as another alternative?
Best wishes, Ranjan
Greets Marcus
Of course, I do not know what issues arise in maintaining a DM. Maybe they are the biggest part of the DE?
Ranjan
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:57:45 -0400 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Hi all.
I know that LXDM might be more directly related to LXDE, but it seems that LightDM is a reasonable, well maintained alternative.
Do you think it could be an option to use LightDM instead of LXDM for the LXDE spin?
Greets Marcus _______________________________________________ lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:37:54 +0200 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Hi again.
Thanks very much for volunteering! Here is the BZ:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:46:24 +0200 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Dear Ranjan
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components (eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place), but I wonder why you think that getting LightDM as the display manager would make a major difference?
I don't know the ssh flaw you mentioned. If you want me to take a look at it, please link the BZ.
This should also be fixed by switching to LightDM. At least it works fine here.
Hi,
Thanks! Sorry but how does one go about actually switching this? Same for SLiM?
Ranjan
____________________________________________________________ FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
Am 20.10.2012 20:56, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:37:54 +0200 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Hi again.
Thanks very much for volunteering! Here is the BZ:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:46:24 +0200 Marcus Moeller mail@marcusmoeller.ch wrote:
Dear Ranjan
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components (eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place), but I wonder why you think that getting LightDM as the display manager would make a major difference?
I don't know the ssh flaw you mentioned. If you want me to take a look at it, please link the BZ.
This should also be fixed by switching to LightDM. At least it works fine here.
Hi,
Thanks! Sorry but how does one go about actually switching this? Same for SLiM?
On Fedora 17: yum install lightdm Open /etc/sysconfig/desktop Set DISPLAYMANAGER="/usr/sbin/lightdm" either reboot or restart prefdm.service (warning: you will get logged you when you are working in an active session started from LXDM)
On Fedora 18:
yum install lightdm systemctl disable lxdm.service systemctl enable lightdm.service either reboot or stop lxdm.service (X session will stop) and start lightdm.service.
Greets Marcus
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
Am Samstag, den 20.10.2012, 13:35 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Thanks! What about SLiM (the original DM of LXDE) as another alternative?
SLiM has never been the original DM of LXDE, it was just used in several distros.
I though it was dead upstream but while writing this mail I figured out there was a new release some months ago. I'll look into that if I find the time but I don't think it will replace LXDM in Fedora.
Kind regards, Christoph
Am Samstag, den 20.10.2012, 19:46 +0200 schrieb Marcus Moeller:
Concerning LightDM: it has some advantages over LXDM and is as mentioned, well maintained.
LXDM is maintained, too. The developer is not as active as lightdm upstream, but this is mostly because he is not backed up by a big company (lightdm is run by Canonical). He is very responsive to bug reports and he is using Fedora for development. This makes maintenance a lot easier for me.
lightdm on the other hand is hard, it is developed on Ubuntu and when I started packaging it, required a lot of patches to get it running on anything but Debian/Ubuntu.
I am not sure about the memory footprint, but I guess it should be at least as light as LXDM.
No it's not.
Kind regards, Christoph
Dear Christoph,
Concerning LightDM: it has some advantages over LXDM and is as mentioned, well maintained.
LXDM is maintained, too. The developer is not as active as lightdm upstream, but this is mostly because he is not backed up by a big company (lightdm is run by Canonical). He is very responsive to bug reports and he is using Fedora for development. This makes maintenance a lot easier for me.
lightdm on the other hand is hard, it is developed on Ubuntu and when I started packaging it, required a lot of patches to get it running on anything but Debian/Ubuntu.
Ok, these are good points. Thanks.
Marcus
I am not sure about the memory footprint, but I guess it should be at least as light as LXDM.
No it's not.
Kind regards, Christoph
lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
Am Samstag, den 20.10.2012, 12:42 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components
Please keep in mind that Fedora is a community project run by volunteers. I am the only LXDE maintainer and there are two reasons I don't invest much time in LXDE any linger. 1. I simply don't have it. 2. I am not using LXDE anymore.
Any help is appreciated, you are welcome to join us.
(eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place),
This is not a flaw, it's rather an improvement than a bug. RFEs should be filed upstream first.
Kind regards, Christoph
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:27:03 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@gmail.com wrote:
Am Samstag, den 20.10.2012, 12:42 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components
Please keep in mind that Fedora is a community project run by volunteers. I am the only LXDE maintainer and there are two reasons I don't invest much time in LXDE any linger. 1. I simply don't have it. 2. I am not using LXDE anymore.
I was not aware of 2., and do appreciate all volunteer efforts. It is just that this irritating bug (and it should be classified a bug, correct?) has been around for the life of over two releases. According to BZ, the workaround (which did not work for me and the rest) should have been enough.
Any help is appreciated, you are welcome to join us.
(eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place),
This is not a flaw, it's rather an improvement than a bug. RFEs should be filed upstream first.
Why is it not a bug? This was not an issue till the very end of F15, when it suddenly became one. This tells me that the problem is a bug and was inadvertently introduced, perhaps as a part of an enhancement, no?
Anyway, replacing LXDM with SLiM took care of the problem. (It is good to know that the locus of the problem is in the DM, and is in LightDM.) I wonder if SLiM is a better alternative than LightDM for LXDM. What is the memory footprint of the three?
I agree that we should steer clear of Ubuntu-related products if possible.
Many thanks and best wishes, Ranjan
Kind regards, Christoph
lxde mailing list lxde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde
Am Samstag, den 20.10.2012, 19:30 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:27:03 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@gmail.com wrote:
Am Samstag, den 20.10.2012, 12:42 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
I have been a bit concerned about the lack of aggressive maintenance in the Fedora LXDE spin components
Please keep in mind that Fedora is a community project run by volunteers. I am the only LXDE maintainer and there are two reasons I don't invest much time in LXDE any linger. 1. I simply don't have it. 2. I am not using LXDE anymore.
I was not aware of 2., and do appreciate all volunteer efforts. It is just that this irritating bug (and it should be classified a bug, correct?) has been around for the life of over two releases. According to BZ, the workaround (which did not work for me and the rest) should have been enough.
A bug is if something does not work as advertised. Do you think the behavior meets this description?
Any help is appreciated, you are welcome to join us.
(eg: inexplicable ssh flaw -- see BZ, for which a fix is suggested by users but not put in place),
This is not a flaw, it's rather an improvement than a bug. RFEs should be filed upstream first.
Why is it not a bug?
See above.
This was not an issue till the very end of F15, when it suddenly became one.
Why not provide this info in bugzilla? Nobody has ever mentioned this before.
This tells me that the problem is a bug and was inadvertently introduced, perhaps as a part of an enhancement, no?
No.
Anyway, replacing LXDM with SLiM took care of the problem. (It is good to know that the locus of the problem is in the DM, and is in LightDM.)
This does not make sense. According to the bug it should be in the startlxde script and not in the DM. That would indicate something is wrong with the PAM configuration or that the DM doesn't source all startup scripts.
Can you please follow the instructions from the first comment of the bug report and post your findings in bugzilla?
I wonder if SLiM is a better alternative than LightDM for LXDM. What is the memory footprint of the three?
Why not test yourself?
Regards, Christoph
Dear Christoph,
I was not aware of 2., and do appreciate all volunteer efforts. It is just that this irritating bug (and it should be classified a bug, correct?) has been around for the life of over two releases. According to BZ, the workaround (which did not work for me and the rest) should have been enough.
A bug is if something does not work as advertised. Do you think the behavior meets this description?
I guess we are referring to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820514
I guess this may have to do with semantics. What works as advertised or not depends on whether you and I consider the same thing to have been advertised. Full disclosure: I am not aware of what was advertised, but from experience, this ssh-agent not getting started as part of the session was not an issue from F12 on to the end of F15 when it suddenly cropped up. Actually, I may mention that this has never been an issue in the other spins for Fedora, only for LXDE.
This was not an issue till the very end of F15, when it suddenly became one.
Why not provide this info in bugzilla? Nobody has ever mentioned this before.
Isn't this info already in there? See Comment 6 though maybe it was not clear. Sorry if not.
(I believe that there was another bug report for F15 on this problem, but that may have been EOL'ed. I am not sure.)
This tells me that the problem is a bug and was inadvertently introduced, perhaps as a part of an enhancement, no?
No.
OK, thanks!
Anyway, replacing LXDM with SLiM took care of the problem. (It is good to know that the locus of the problem is in the DM, and is in LightDM.)
(Sorry, I meant to indicate LXDM, not LightDM in the above, hope it makes sense now.)
This does not make sense. According to the bug it should be in the startlxde script and not in the DM. That would indicate something is wrong with the PAM configuration or that the DM doesn't source all startup scripts.
Perhaps. But as others have also indicated, changing the DM seems to have worked. It worked for me (by replacing LXDM with SLiM), and it appears to have worked for a few others (who replaced LXDM with LightDM).
Can you please follow the instructions from the first comment of the bug report and post your findings in bugzilla?
I can tell you what happened when I tried, which is the same as before:
in terminal:
% ssh-add
Could not open connection to user agent
So used:
% ssh-agent bash % ssh-add
which gives me ssh passphrases valid only for that window (tab).
Not sure what more info you would like? I may mention that I have now gotten rid of LXDM, but am happy to try it again to help you test.
I wonder if SLiM is a better alternative than LightDM for LXDM. What is the memory footprint of the three?
Why not test yourself?
I was wondering if you/anyone knew. I decided against testing, given that LXDM is buggy here, and since LightDM is a Ubuntu-based product. I am happy with SLiM for now.
Thanks again for all yours and other volunteers' efforts. It is much appreciated!!
Best wishes, Ranjan
____________________________________________________________ FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
Am Montag, den 22.10.2012, 19:35 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Perhaps. But as others have also indicated, changing the DM seems to have worked. It worked for me (by replacing LXDM with SLiM), and it appears to have worked for a few others (who replaced LXDM with LightDM).
Can you please follow the instructions from the first comment of the bug report and post your findings in bugzilla?
I can tell you what happened when I tried, which is the same as before:
in terminal:
% ssh-add
Could not open connection to user agent
So used:
% ssh-agent bash % ssh-add
which gives me ssh passphrases valid only for that window (tab).
Not sure what more info you would like?
I think I already told you. I want somebody to test the "How to reproduce" steps from the bug report with all three login managers, and the findings documented in the bug report. Debugging helps me to determine the source of the problem but a mailing list is not the right place for debugging.
Thanks in advance, Christoph
Dear Christoph,
Many thanks for your e-mail.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:16:48 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@gmail.com wrote:
Am Montag, den 22.10.2012, 19:35 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Perhaps. But as others have also indicated, changing the DM seems to have worked. It worked for me (by replacing LXDM with SLiM), and it appears to have worked for a few others (who replaced LXDM with LightDM).
Can you please follow the instructions from the first comment of the bug report and post your findings in bugzilla?
I can tell you what happened when I tried, which is the same as before:
in terminal:
% ssh-add
Could not open connection to user agent
So used:
% ssh-agent bash % ssh-add
which gives me ssh passphrases valid only for that window (tab).
Not sure what more info you would like?
I think I already told you. I want somebody to test the "How to reproduce" steps from the bug report with all three login managers, and the findings documented in the bug report. Debugging helps me to determine the source of the problem but a mailing list is not the right place for debugging.
The above are the exact steps to reproduce the problem with LXDM. With SLiM, all that happens is that ssh-add asks for the passphrase (as it should) for the first instance after the first login. After that, it is not needed to add the ssh user agent.
I haven't tried LightDM.
Is this information adequate? What is missing?
Best wishes, Ranjan
Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2012, 13:07 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Dear Christoph,
Many thanks for your e-mail.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:16:48 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@gmail.com wrote:
Am Montag, den 22.10.2012, 19:35 -0500 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Perhaps. But as others have also indicated, changing the DM seems to have worked. It worked for me (by replacing LXDM with SLiM), and it appears to have worked for a few others (who replaced LXDM with LightDM).
Can you please follow the instructions from the first comment of the bug report and post your findings in bugzilla?
I can tell you what happened when I tried, which is the same as before:
in terminal:
% ssh-add
Could not open connection to user agent
So used:
% ssh-agent bash % ssh-add
which gives me ssh passphrases valid only for that window (tab).
Not sure what more info you would like?
I think I already told you. I want somebody to test the "How to reproduce" steps from the bug report with all three login managers, and the findings documented in the bug report. Debugging helps me to determine the source of the problem but a mailing list is not the right place for debugging.
The above are the exact steps to reproduce the problem with LXDM. With SLiM, all that happens is that ssh-add asks for the passphrase (as it should) for the first instance after the first login. After that, it is not needed to add the ssh user agent.
I haven't tried LightDM.
Is this information adequate? What is missing?
Hi Ranjan,
I know you are trying to help and I don't want to sound rude, but I'm afraid we are running in circles. I already told you three times what to do. 1. Please run the exact steps given in the bug report under "How to reproduce" and document your findings in the bug report. 2. Please add the information to the bug report. A mailing list is not the right place to discuss bugs.
Thanks in advance, Christoph
Am Samstag, den 20.10.2012, 12:57 -0400 schrieb Marcus Moeller:
Hi all.
I know that LXDM might be more directly related to LXDE, but it seems that LightDM is a reasonable, well maintained alternative.
Do you think it could be an option to use LightDM instead of LXDM for the LXDE spin?
No, I currently don't see any benefit it offers over LXDM. We are still having difficulties with it, e.g. it does not end the user's session on logout.
Kind regards, Christoph
-
Christoph Wickert -
Marcus Moeller -
Ranjan Maitra