3:42 a.m.
I installed Sugar as additional Windows Manager, but when I removed all
sugar group also gdm was removed, so I couldn't restart graphically.I
had to start in text mode, and re-install it.
I suppose that this is not correct, but what is wrong??
--
Antonio M
Skype: amontag52
Linux Fedora F15 (Lovelock) on Acer 5720
http://lugsaronno.altervista.org
http://www.campingmonterosa.com
http://www.studiodacolpaloschi.it
9:13 a.m.
On 10/23/2011 09:28 AM, antonio wrote:
Mark LaPierre ha scritto / said the following il giorno/on
23/10/2011
15:24:
> On 10/23/2011 04:42 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
>> I installed Sugar as additional Windows Manager, but when I removed all
>> sugar group also gdm was removed, so I couldn't restart graphically.I
>> had to start in text mode, and re-install it.
>> I suppose that this is not correct, but what is wrong??
>>
> When you removed the entire group you also took GDM with it because it's
> part of the group. All you need to do it reinstall GDM to get your
> graphical log in back.
>
that is what I did (a stated in my previous message)...but I suppose
that GDM is included in any group of WM's, i.e. a newbie might
disinstall GDM any WM group he would disinstall: quite insane, isn't it
It would be nice if it checked to see if there were any other window
manager packages installed before removing GDM. That would make the
system more user friendly for new users who didn't know what GDM was or
how to reinstall it without a GUI.
The problem with that approach is that the list of WM's, and the
associated package names would have to be provided in some way so that
it would know what to look for. I can see managing that list getting
out of hand in a hurry. How could you be sure that the list contained
all the possible WM's?
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Mark LaPierre
Registerd Linux user No #267004
www.counter.li.org
****
In a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
Help Microsoft stamp out piracy - give Linux to a friend today.
**
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
To mess up an MS Windows box, you just need to *look* at it.
**
learn linux:
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html
'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/
'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html
'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/
****
--
Signature shamelessly copied from:
Jatin Khatri & geleem
3:31 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/23/2011 03:26 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Sunday 23 October 2011 21:14:17 Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>> How do you determine whether or not a given wm needs gdm? Any wm can
>> equally well use kdm instead of gdm, so it is actually a conditional
>> dependency --- "if there is no other dm installed, and if there is some
>> wm which depends on the presence of a dm, don't uninstall it".
>
> Can you tell me one good reason that a dm should be a dependency of any wm?
Well, if you intend to run a wm in runlevel 5, you do need a dm, right? The
problem in my view is that this is a many-to-many mapping, so a given wm may
depend on *either* a gdm or kdm or xdm or whatever, but not on any particular
one of them.
Although, strictly speaking, you can always boot into runlevel 3 and start
your wm from there manually, so the wm doesn't strictly depend on the presence
of a dm (and the formal answer to your question is "no"). However, most of the
people typically boot into runlevel 5, so it makes sense to have a dm whenever
you have a wm installed. For me that is a good enough reason. ;-)
Best, :-)
Marko
Not to difficult to provide. You have a dependency for a dm, and any
of the dm packages satisfy it. Like you do with a mail server now.
You could then use the alternate selection tool to select the dm you
want to use.
But you do get a dm installed that you do not use if you normally
start X from the cli.
Mikkel
- --
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk6keZcACgkQqbQrVW3JyMShwgCfcw1lYzH81HYUYtsxAkn0CQrX
H7AAn2C2krtELHrAZt3aFhDsOzasWdI+
=RI//
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:17 p.m.
On 10/23/2011 09:24 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 10/23/2011 04:42 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
> I installed Sugar as additional Windows Manager, but when I removed all
> sugar group also gdm was removed, so I couldn't restart graphically.I
> had to start in text mode, and re-install it.
> I suppose that this is not correct, but what is wrong??
>
When you removed the entire group you also took GDM with it because it's
part of the group. All you need to do it reinstall GDM to get your
graphical log in back.
How about this for a solution? Make a group for install that contains
the gdm and a group for remove that does not contain gdm. Then yum
would only have to know if it was doing an install or a remove to get
the right group.
Maybe a label field in the group file that yum could check. Label gdm
as install only. Then yum would know to ignore gdm when removing this
group.
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Mark LaPierre
Registerd Linux user No #267004
www.counter.li.org
****
In a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
Help Microsoft stamp out piracy - give Linux to a friend today.
**
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
To mess up an MS Windows box, you just need to *look* at it.
**
learn linux:
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html
'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/
'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html
'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/
****
--
Signature shamelessly copied from:
Jatin Khatri & geleem
3:19 p.m.
On 10/23/2011 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Best, :-)
Marko
Sorry to be sending this to the list, but as you'll see, it's the only
way I can do this. Please remove your own email address from the Reply
To: field until you've got it working again. Every time I reply to one
of your posts, the one sent to you personally bounces with this message:
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of
its recipients. The following addresses failed:
<vmarko(a)ipb.ac.rs>
SMTP error from remote server after transfer of mail text:
host mail.ipb.ac.rs[147.91.80.4]:
550 5.7.1 message content rejected
3:33 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/23/2011 03:14 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> How do you determine whether or not a given wm needs gdm? Any wm can equally
> well use kdm instead of gdm, so it is actually a conditional dependency ---
> "if there is no other dm installed, and if there is some wm which depends on
> the presence of a dm, don't uninstall it".
Can you tell me one good reason that a dm should be a dependency of any wm?
That is a good question. If you boot to the cli, and use startx, you
do not need one. But if you make installing xdm part of installing
X, you are not using that much extra space. If you want a fancier
dm, install it.
Mikkel
- --
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk6keiIACgkQqbQrVW3JyMQFNQCfX8UqlpK+fgKlNkqCBKUBEf6j
Q7QAn05i/9OALUIdKHFUxnIZaCbr36cK
=KHqG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3:30 p.m.
On Sunday 23 October 2011 21:19:57 Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Sorry to be sending this to the list, but as you'll see, it's the only
way I can do this. Please remove your own email address from the Reply
To: field until you've got it working again. Every time I reply to one
of your posts, the one sent to you personally bounces with this message:
Oh, sorry, ok, is it fixed now?
Best, :-)
Marko
3:26 p.m.
On Sunday 23 October 2011 21:14:17 Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> How do you determine whether or not a given wm needs gdm? Any wm can
> equally well use kdm instead of gdm, so it is actually a conditional
> dependency --- "if there is no other dm installed, and if there is some
> wm which depends on the presence of a dm, don't uninstall it".
Can you tell me one good reason that a dm should be a dependency of any wm?
Well, if you intend to run a wm in runlevel 5, you do need a dm, right? The
problem in my view is that this is a many-to-many mapping, so a given wm may
depend on *either* a gdm or kdm or xdm or whatever, but not on any particular
one of them.
Although, strictly speaking, you can always boot into runlevel 3 and start
your wm from there manually, so the wm doesn't strictly depend on the presence
of a dm (and the formal answer to your question is "no"). However, most of the
people typically boot into runlevel 5, so it makes sense to have a dm whenever
you have a wm installed. For me that is a good enough reason. ;-)
Best, :-)
Marko
3:20 p.m.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday 23 October 2011 19:17:54 Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 07:20 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
> > A simple solution would be not disinstall GDM by default in any WM group
> > disinstallation: I guess that many people want to try different WM's and
> > in case they decided to disinstall some WM, their GDM would be killed,
> > that is not fair. How about this simple decision, i.e. not to include
> > GDM in any disinstallation list??
>
> In general, when you remove a package you also remove its dependencies
> if and only if nothing else needs them. As long as you have a WM
> installed that needs gdm, it shouldn't be removed. Sounds like a bug to
> me. Report it.
How do you determine whether or not a given wm needs gdm? Any wm can equally
well use kdm instead of gdm, so it is actually a conditional dependency ---
"if there is no other dm installed, and if there is some wm which depends on
the presence of a dm, don't uninstall it".
It's a mess, if you ask me. :-) Multiple wm's and de's, "maybe
depending" on
multiple dm's that may or may not be present...
Developers could try something similar to symbolic links. Each package
could add a dependency link. When the last link is deleted the actual
dependent package can be removed.
2:55 p.m.
On Sunday 23 October 2011 19:17:54 Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/23/2011 07:20 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
> A simple solution would be not disinstall GDM by default in any WM group
> disinstallation: I guess that many people want to try different WM's and
> in case they decided to disinstall some WM, their GDM would be killed,
> that is not fair. How about this simple decision, i.e. not to include
> GDM in any disinstallation list??
In general, when you remove a package you also remove its dependencies
if and only if nothing else needs them. As long as you have a WM
installed that needs gdm, it shouldn't be removed. Sounds like a bug to
me. Report it.
How do you determine whether or not a given wm needs gdm? Any wm can equally
well use kdm instead of gdm, so it is actually a conditional dependency ---
"if there is no other dm installed, and if there is some wm which depends on
the presence of a dm, don't uninstall it".
It's a mess, if you ask me. :-) Multiple wm's and de's, "maybe
depending" on
multiple dm's that may or may not be present...
Best, :-)
Marko
1:17 p.m.
On 10/23/2011 07:20 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
A simple solution would be not disinstall GDM by default in any WM
group
disinstallation: I guess that many people want to try different WM's and
in case they decided to disinstall some WM, their GDM would be killed,
that is not fair. How about this simple decision, i.e. not to include
GDM in any disinstallation list??
In general, when you remove a package you also remove its dependencies
if and only if nothing else needs them. As long as you have a WM
installed that needs gdm, it shouldn't be removed. Sounds like a bug to
me. Report it.
12:26 p.m.
On 10/23/2011 10:44 PM, Tim wrote:
The problem sounds far stupider, to me, than the proposal to avoid
it.
The problem sounds like dependencies in the wrong direction.
The solution is silly regardless of the problem. There are no reverse
dependencies in play here. If you want to understand the problem, take
the time to read
http://illiterat.livejournal.com/5571.html
Rahul
12:14 p.m.
antonio montagnani:
> A simple solution would be not disinstall GDM by default in any
WM group
> disinstallation: I guess that many people want to try different WM's and
> in case they decided to disinstall some WM, their GDM would be killed,
> that is not fair. How about this simple decision, i.e. not to include
> GDM in any disinstallation list??
Rahul Sundaram:
How many other packages would you add to such a list? This is a
clunky
solution really.
The problem sounds far stupider, to me, than the proposal to avoid it.
The problem sounds like dependencies in the wrong direction.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
10:27 a.m.
Rahul Sundaram ha scritto / said the following il giorno/on
23/10/2011 16:52:
On 10/23/2011 07:50 PM, antonio montagnani wrote:
> A simple solution would be not disinstall GDM by default in any WM group
> disinstallation: I guess that many people want to try different WM's and
> in case they decided to disinstall some WM, their GDM would be killed,
> that is not fair. How about this simple decision, i.e. not to include
> GDM in any disinstallation list??
How many other packages would you add to such a list? This is a clunky
solution really.
Rahul
I don't know what is the solution (I am a power user, non a developer)
but I still think that removing GDM by simply removing any WM group is
not the same that removing other packages, as when you logout and login
again your system is pretty unusable for a standard user.
Especially after Gnome3 introduction many want to try alternative WM and
GDM is blown away when they remove any WM
My two cents.
--
Antonio M
Skype: amontag52
Linux Fedora F15 (Lovelock) on Acer 5720
http://lugsaronno.altervista.org
http://www.campingmonterosa.com
http://www.studiodacolpaloschi.it
9:52 a.m.
On 10/23/2011 07:50 PM, antonio montagnani wrote:
A simple solution would be not disinstall GDM by default in any WM
group
disinstallation: I guess that many people want to try different WM's and
in case they decided to disinstall some WM, their GDM would be killed,
that is not fair. How about this simple decision, i.e. not to include
GDM in any disinstallation list??
How many other packages would you add to such a list? This is a clunky
solution really.
Rahul
9:20 a.m.
Mark LaPierre ha scritto / said the following il giorno/on 23/10/2011
16:13:
On 10/23/2011 09:28 AM, antonio wrote:
> Mark LaPierre ha scritto / said the following il giorno/on 23/10/2011
> 15:24:
>> On 10/23/2011 04:42 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
>>> I installed Sugar as additional Windows Manager, but when I removed all
>>> sugar group also gdm was removed, so I couldn't restart graphically.I
>>> had to start in text mode, and re-install it.
>>> I suppose that this is not correct, but what is wrong??
>>>
>> When you removed the entire group you also took GDM with it because it's
>> part of the group. All you need to do it reinstall GDM to get your
>> graphical log in back.
>>
> that is what I did (a stated in my previous message)...but I suppose
> that GDM is included in any group of WM's, i.e. a newbie might
> disinstall GDM any WM group he would disinstall: quite insane, isn't it
>
It would be nice if it checked to see if there were any other window
manager packages installed before removing GDM. That would make the
system more user friendly for new users who didn't know what GDM was or
how to reinstall it without a GUI.
The problem with that approach is that the list of WM's, and the
associated package names would have to be provided in some way so that
it would know what to look for. I can see managing that list getting
out of hand in a hurry. How could you be sure that the list contained
all the possible WM's?
A simple solution would be not disinstall GDM by default in any WM group
disinstallation: I guess that many people want to try different WM's and
in case they decided to disinstall some WM, their GDM would be killed,
that is not fair. How about this simple decision, i.e. not to include
GDM in any disinstallation list??
--
Antonio M
Skype: amontag52
Linux Fedora F15 (Lovelock) on Acer 5720
http://lugsaronno.altervista.org
http://www.campingmonterosa.com
http://www.studiodacolpaloschi.it
8:28 a.m.
Mark LaPierre ha scritto / said the following il giorno/on 23/10/2011
15:24:
On 10/23/2011 04:42 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
> I installed Sugar as additional Windows Manager, but when I removed all
> sugar group also gdm was removed, so I couldn't restart graphically.I
> had to start in text mode, and re-install it.
> I suppose that this is not correct, but what is wrong??
>
When you removed the entire group you also took GDM with it because it's
part of the group. All you need to do it reinstall GDM to get your
graphical log in back.
that is what I did (a stated in my previous message)...but I suppose
that GDM is included in any group of WM's, i.e. a newbie might
disinstall GDM any WM group he would disinstall: quite insane, isn't it
--
Antonio M
Skype: amontag52
Linux Fedora F15 (Lovelock) on Acer 5720
http://lugsaronno.altervista.org
http://www.campingmonterosa.com
http://www.studiodacolpaloschi.it
8:24 a.m.
On 10/23/2011 04:42 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
I installed Sugar as additional Windows Manager, but when I removed
all
sugar group also gdm was removed, so I couldn't restart graphically.I
had to start in text mode, and re-install it.
I suppose that this is not correct, but what is wrong??
When you removed the entire group you also took GDM with it because it's
part of the group. All you need to do it reinstall GDM to get your
graphical log in back.
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Mark LaPierre
Registerd Linux user No #267004
www.counter.li.org
****
In a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
Help Microsoft stamp out piracy - give Linux to a friend today.
**
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
To mess up an MS Windows box, you just need to *look* at it.
**
learn linux:
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html
'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/
'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html
'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/
****
--
Signature shamelessly copied from:
Jatin Khatri & geleem
3:14 p.m.
On 10/23/2011 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
How do you determine whether or not a given wm needs gdm? Any wm can
equally
well use kdm instead of gdm, so it is actually a conditional dependency ---
"if there is no other dm installed, and if there is some wm which depends on
the presence of a dm, don't uninstall it".
Can you tell me one good reason that a dm should be a dependency of any wm?
4588
days inactive
4591
days old
18 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Antonio M -
antonio montagnani -
Joe Zeff -
Kam Leo -
Mark LaPierre -
Marko Vojinovic -
Mikkel L. Ellertson -
Rahul Sundaram -
Tim