non-Xfce apps in the xfce-desktop group

[Christoph Wickert]

Recently some system-config-* tools were moved from the base-x group to
their "appropriate desktop environments" [1] [2]. I think removing them
from base-x is a step in the right direction, but adding system-config-*
stuff and especially abrt-desktop or gnome-packagekit with their GNOME
dependencies to the xfce-desktop group seems wrong to me. These are
admin tools, they are already part of the admin-tools group and will be
installed on the current Xfce spin anyway because we install
admin-tools. IMHO 'yum install ydxe-desktop' should only install an Xfce
desktop, not more and not less.

Is everybody fine with me removing 
      * abrt-desktop
      * gnome-packagekit
      * system-config-date
      * system-config-firewall
      * system-config-services
      * system-config-users
from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3].

This still leaves us with the following non-Xfce packages:
      * desktop-backgrounds-compat
      * gdm
      * openssh-askpass
      * polkit-gnome

desktop-backgrounds-compat is required and openssh-ask pass not
problematic. polkit-gnome is not problematic either because it has no
GNOME dependencies, but if this changes or they switch to GTK+ 3, we can
still move to lxpolkit.

So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need a display
manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in GTK+
3 and requires not only gnome-session but also gnome-settings-manager
and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such as gnome-control-center.
We'd end up with two screensavers but only xscreensaver works in Xfce.

LXDE is too buggy IMHO and I'm currently packaging and investigating
lightdm [4]. I'll let you know once it's read for testing and then we
can decide whether or not to switch.

Questions? Thoughts?

Regards,
Christoph

[1]
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=f2cb3971ffb2a...
[2]
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=9905085a78c71...
[3]
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=aa9132ce2a119...
[4] https://launchpad.net/lightdm/

[Brock Hudson]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:11:12 +0100
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Recently some system-config-* tools were moved from the base-x group
>  to their "appropriate desktop environments" [1] [2]. I think removing
>  them from base-x is a step in the right direction, but adding
>  system-config-* stuff and especially abrt-desktop or gnome-packagekit
>  with their GNOME dependencies to the xfce-desktop group seems wrong
>  to me. These are admin tools, they are already part of the
>  admin-tools group and will be installed on the current Xfce spin
>  anyway because we install admin-tools. IMHO 'yum install
>  ydxe-desktop' should only install an Xfce desktop, not more and not
>  less.
>  
>  Is everybody fine with me removing 
>        * abrt-desktop
>        * gnome-packagekit
>        * system-config-date
>        * system-config-firewall
>        * system-config-services
>        * system-config-users
>  from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3].
>  
>  This still leaves us with the following non-Xfce packages:
>        * desktop-backgrounds-compat
>        * gdm
>        * openssh-askpass
>        * polkit-gnome
>  
>  desktop-backgrounds-compat is required and openssh-ask pass not
>  problematic. polkit-gnome is not problematic either because it has no
>  GNOME dependencies, but if this changes or they switch to GTK+ 3, we
>  can still move to lxpolkit.
>  
>  So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need a display
>  manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in
>  GTK+ 3 and requires not only gnome-session but also
>  gnome-settings-manager and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such
>  as gnome-control-center. We'd end up with two screensavers but only
>  xscreensaver works in Xfce.
>  
>  LXDE is too buggy IMHO and I'm currently packaging and investigating
>  lightdm [4]. I'll let you know once it's read for testing and then we
>  can decide whether or not to switch.
>  
>  Questions? Thoughts?
>  
>  Regards,
>  Christoph
>  
>  [1]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=f2cb3971ffb2a...
>  [2]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=9905085a78c71...
>  [3]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=aa9132ce2a119...
>  [4] https://launchpad.net/lightdm/
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  xfce mailing list
>  xfce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce 
I have been running LXDM with my XFCE spin for about 3 months now and
haven't encountered any bugs, and I prefer it to GDM. Could we include
that instead of GDM?

[Martin Sourada]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:08:13 -0500 
Brock Hudson wrote:
>  I have been running LXDM with my XFCE spin for about 3 months now
> and
>  haven't encountered any bugs, and I prefer it to GDM. Could we include
>  that instead of GDM?  
I'd guess it already is -- I just booted F15 Alpha RC 2 XFCE Spin and it
uses LXDM (probably, from its looks it's neither XDM nor KDM nor GDM).
And it looks like it would work nicely :) 

[OT] Btw. I'd like to try it instead of GDM as well on my already
installed system but I haven't got any idea how to set it up. Any
pointers?

Thanks,
Martin

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Samstag, den 05.03.2011, 20:42 +0100 schrieb Martin Sourada:
>  On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:08:13 -0500 
>  Brock Hudson wrote:
>  > I have been running LXDM with my XFCE spin for about 3 months now and
>  > haven't encountered any bugs, and I prefer it to GDM. Could we include
>  > that instead of GDM? 
>  
>  I'd guess it already is -- I just booted F15 Alpha RC 2 XFCE Spin and it
>  uses LXDM (probably, from its looks it's neither XDM nor KDM nor GDM). 
This was only meant as a temporary solution for 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674978 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678712

>  And it looks like it would work nicely :)  
Not really, it has a number of problems:
      * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682299
      * has some SELinux problems, see
        https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635897
      * doesn't handle dual screen 
      * doesn't allow a keyboard selection on the login screen

The latter has changed in git already, I need to update the package.

>  [OT] Btw. I'd like to try it instead of GDM as well on my
> already
>  installed system but I haven't got any idea how to set it up. Any
>  pointers? 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LXDE#LXDM

Regards,
Christoph

[Brock Hudson]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 20:56:55 +0100
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Am Samstag, den 05.03.2011, 20:42 +0100 schrieb Martin Sourada:
>  > On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:08:13 -0500 
>  > Brock Hudson wrote:
>  > > I have been running LXDM with my XFCE spin for about 3 months now
>  > > and haven't encountered any bugs, and I prefer it to GDM. Could
>  > > we include that instead of GDM? 
>  > 
>  > I'd guess it already is -- I just booted F15 Alpha RC 2 XFCE Spin
>  > and it uses LXDM (probably, from its looks it's neither XDM nor KDM
>  > nor GDM).
>  
>  This was only meant as a temporary solution for 
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674978 and
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678712
>  
>  > And it looks like it would work nicely :) 
>  
>  Not really, it has a number of problems:
>        * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682299
>        * has some SELinux problems, see
>          https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635897
>        * doesn't handle dual screen 
>        * doesn't allow a keyboard selection on the login screen
>  
>  The latter has changed in git already, I need to update the package.
>  
>  > [OT] Btw. I'd like to try it instead of GDM as well on my already
>  > installed system but I haven't got any idea how to set it up. Any
>  > pointers?
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LXDE#LXDM
>  
>  Regards,
>  Christoph
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  xfce mailing list
>  xfce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce 
Personally SELinux drives me up the wall sometimes, yes its nice but
even my own shell scripts occasionally have a problem with it. :( 

I do realize it doesn't handle dual screen but doesn't LXDE itself come
with a disclaimer that it isn't a powerful desktop with all the
features that most others have, but rather a more conservative approach
to the desktop? 

I do agree though keyboard selection is important though...

[Suvayu Ali]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Brock Hudson <escapingsummer(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Personally SELinux drives me up the wall sometimes, yes its nice but
>  even my own shell scripts occasionally have a problem with it. :(
>  
I think security issues are of the prime importance. If someone wants
not to use SELINUX, its their choice. But having something as
important as the desktop manager on the default spin that doesn't play
well with SELINUX is not a good option in my opinion.

>  I do realize it doesn't handle dual screen but doesn't LXDE
> itself come
>  with a disclaimer that it isn't a powerful desktop with all the
>  features that most others have, but rather a more conservative approach
>  to the desktop? 
I think use of XFCE is rather common on mobile platforms like laptops
and netbooks. These are also the platforms which get used in a dual
display configuration rather often (presentations or work with
external monitors at work). FWIW, I use XFCE on my primary desktop and
workstation too and they are all dual screens.

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

[Brock Hudson]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 12:41:31 -0800
suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Hi,
>  
>  On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Brock Hudson
>  <escapingsummer(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > Personally SELinux drives me up the wall sometimes, yes its nice but
>  > even my own shell scripts occasionally have a problem with it. :(
>  >
>  
>  I think security issues are of the prime importance. If someone wants
>  not to use SELINUX, its their choice. But having something as
>  important as the desktop manager on the default spin that doesn't play
>  well with SELINUX is not a good option in my opinion.
>  
>  > I do realize it doesn't handle dual screen but doesn't LXDE itself
>  > come with a disclaimer that it isn't a powerful desktop with all the
>  > features that most others have, but rather a more conservative
>  > approach to the desktop?
>  
>  I think use of XFCE is rather common on mobile platforms like laptops
>  and netbooks. These are also the platforms which get used in a dual
>  display configuration rather often (presentations or work with
>  external monitors at work). FWIW, I use XFCE on my primary desktop and
>  workstation too and they are all dual screens.
>   
Like I stated about SELinux it is nice and I appreciate and understand
why its there and its importance and I am a very big proponent of
security however I was simply stating it is occasionally an annoyance
for me but its just the way it has to be. 

I do realize Xfce is a popular choice for mobile platforms, and I am
not saying that it isn't important to include that feature, I was just
stating that LXDM and the other components of LXDE have a disclaimer
with them that they are NOT feature rich compared to other DEs.

[Brock Hudson]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:11:12 +0100
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Recently some system-config-* tools were moved from the base-x group
>  to their "appropriate desktop environments" [1] [2]. I think removing
>  them from base-x is a step in the right direction, but adding
>  system-config-* stuff and especially abrt-desktop or gnome-packagekit
>  with their GNOME dependencies to the xfce-desktop group seems wrong
>  to me. These are admin tools, they are already part of the
>  admin-tools group and will be installed on the current Xfce spin
>  anyway because we install admin-tools. IMHO 'yum install
>  ydxe-desktop' should only install an Xfce desktop, not more and not
>  less.
>  
>  Is everybody fine with me removing 
>        * abrt-desktop
>        * gnome-packagekit
>        * system-config-date
>        * system-config-firewall
>        * system-config-services
>        * system-config-users
>  from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3].
>  
>  This still leaves us with the following non-Xfce packages:
>        * desktop-backgrounds-compat
>        * gdm
>        * openssh-askpass
>        * polkit-gnome
>  
>  desktop-backgrounds-compat is required and openssh-ask pass not
>  problematic. polkit-gnome is not problematic either because it has no
>  GNOME dependencies, but if this changes or they switch to GTK+ 3, we
>  can still move to lxpolkit.
>  
>  So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need a display
>  manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in
>  GTK+ 3 and requires not only gnome-session but also
>  gnome-settings-manager and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such
>  as gnome-control-center. We'd end up with two screensavers but only
>  xscreensaver works in Xfce.
>  
>  LXDE is too buggy IMHO and I'm currently packaging and investigating
>  lightdm [4]. I'll let you know once it's read for testing and then we
>  can decide whether or not to switch.
>  
>  Questions? Thoughts?
>  
>  Regards,
>  Christoph
>  
>  [1]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=f2cb3971ffb2a...
>  [2]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=9905085a78c71...
>  [3]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=aa9132ce2a119...
>  [4] https://launchpad.net/lightdm/
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  xfce mailing list
>  xfce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce 
>  So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need a display
>  manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in
>  GTK+ 3 and requires not only gnome-session but also
>  gnome-settings-manager and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such
>  as gnome-control-center. We'd end up with two screensavers but only
>  xscreensaver works in Xfce. 
What about XDM? Yeah its ugly however it gets the job done. 

>        * openssh-askpass
>        * polkit-gnome 
I am fine with leaving these within the list of packages kept, however
I have wanted to remove GDM for over a year now.

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Samstag, den 05.03.2011, 15:19 -0500 schrieb Brock Hudson:
>  On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:11:12 +0100
>  Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need a display
>  > manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in
>  > GTK+ 3 and requires not only gnome-session but also
>  > gnome-settings-manager and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such
>  > as gnome-control-center. We'd end up with two screensavers but only
>  > xscreensaver works in Xfce.
>  
>  What about XDM? Yeah its ugly however it gets the job done. 
Nope, it doesn't support policykit and automatic unlocking of the
keyring from gnome-keyring

>  >       * openssh-askpass
>  >       * polkit-gnome
>  
>  I am fine with leaving these within the list of packages kept, however
>  I have wanted to remove GDM for over a year now.  
I fully agree. polkit-gnome and openssh-askpass are harmless but GDM is
not, so I'll continue working on LightDM.

Regards,
Christoph

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:11:12 +0100
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Recently some system-config-* tools were moved from the base-x group
>  to their "appropriate desktop environments" [1] [2]. I think removing
>  them from base-x is a step in the right direction, but adding
>  system-config-* stuff and especially abrt-desktop or gnome-packagekit
>  with their GNOME dependencies to the xfce-desktop group seems wrong
>  to me. These are admin tools, they are already part of the
>  admin-tools group and will be installed on the current Xfce spin
>  anyway because we install admin-tools. IMHO 'yum install
>  ydxe-desktop' should only install an Xfce desktop, not more and not
>  less.
>  
>  Is everybody fine with me removing 
>        * abrt-desktop
>        * gnome-packagekit
>        * system-config-date
>        * system-config-firewall
>        * system-config-services
>        * system-config-users
>  from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3]. 
Sure. 

>  This still leaves us with the following non-Xfce packages:
>        * desktop-backgrounds-compat
>        * gdm
>        * openssh-askpass
>        * polkit-gnome
>  
>  desktop-backgrounds-compat is required and openssh-ask pass not
>  problematic. polkit-gnome is not problematic either because it has no
>  GNOME dependencies, but if this changes or they switch to GTK+ 3, we
>  can still move to lxpolkit.
>  
>  So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need a display
>  manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in
>  GTK+ 3 and requires not only gnome-session but also
>  gnome-settings-manager and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such
>  as gnome-control-center. We'd end up with two screensavers but only
>  xscreensaver works in Xfce.
>  
>  LXDE is too buggy IMHO and I'm currently packaging and investigating
>  lightdm [4]. I'll let you know once it's read for testing and then we
>  can decide whether or not to switch.
>  
>  Questions? Thoughts? 
I have been wanting to switch away from gdm for a long time, but
nothing ever pans out. ;( 

I hope lightdm ends up being good. Otherwise we either use gdm another
release, or try and fix lxdm up enough to work for us. ;( 

kevin

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Samstag, den 05.03.2011, 13:49 -0700 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>  On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:11:12 +0100
>  Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: 
>  > Is everybody fine with me removing 
>  >       * abrt-desktop
>  >       * gnome-packagekit
>  >       * system-config-date
>  >       * system-config-firewall
>  >       * system-config-services
>  >       * system-config-users
>  > from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3].
>  
>  Sure.  
Done.

However I'm no longer sure about abrt-desktop. It is default in GNOME
and KDE and we might want to be in line with them.

Another option would be a conditional: If abrt is installed, install
abrt-desktop while installing Xfce. Does this make sense?

Regards,
Christoph

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:11:38 +0100
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Am Samstag, den 05.03.2011, 13:49 -0700 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>  > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:11:12 +0100
>  > Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > > Is everybody fine with me removing 
>  > >       * abrt-desktop
>  > >       * gnome-packagekit
>  > >       * system-config-date
>  > >       * system-config-firewall
>  > >       * system-config-services
>  > >       * system-config-users
>  > > from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3].
>  > 
>  > Sure. 
>  
>  Done.
>  
>  However I'm no longer sure about abrt-desktop. It is default in GNOME
>  and KDE and we might want to be in line with them. 
yeah, I am ok with following that lead and just keeping it for now. 

>  Another option would be a conditional: If abrt is installed, install
>  abrt-desktop while installing Xfce. Does this make sense? 
Perhaps, I think lets just leave it in for now?

kevin

[Brock Hudson]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:11:12 +0100
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Recently some system-config-* tools were moved from the base-x group
>  to their "appropriate desktop environments" [1] [2]. I think removing
>  them from base-x is a step in the right direction, but adding
>  system-config-* stuff and especially abrt-desktop or gnome-packagekit
>  with their GNOME dependencies to the xfce-desktop group seems wrong
>  to me. These are admin tools, they are already part of the
>  admin-tools group and will be installed on the current Xfce spin
>  anyway because we install admin-tools. IMHO 'yum install
>  ydxe-desktop' should only install an Xfce desktop, not more and not
>  less.
>  
>  Is everybody fine with me removing 
>        * abrt-desktop
>        * gnome-packagekit
>        * system-config-date
>        * system-config-firewall
>        * system-config-services
>        * system-config-users
>  from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3].
>  
>  This still leaves us with the following non-Xfce packages:
>        * desktop-backgrounds-compat
>        * gdm
>        * openssh-askpass
>        * polkit-gnome
>  
>  desktop-backgrounds-compat is required and openssh-ask pass not
>  problematic. polkit-gnome is not problematic either because it has no
>  GNOME dependencies, but if this changes or they switch to GTK+ 3, we
>  can still move to lxpolkit.
>  
>  So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need a display
>  manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in
>  GTK+ 3 and requires not only gnome-session but also
>  gnome-settings-manager and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such
>  as gnome-control-center. We'd end up with two screensavers but only
>  xscreensaver works in Xfce.
>  
>  LXDE is too buggy IMHO and I'm currently packaging and investigating
>  lightdm [4]. I'll let you know once it's read for testing and then we
>  can decide whether or not to switch.
>  
>  Questions? Thoughts?
>  
>  Regards,
>  Christoph
>  
>  [1]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=f2cb3971ffb2a...
>  [2]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=9905085a78c71...
>  [3]
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=comps.git;a=commitdiff;h=aa9132ce2a119...
>  [4] https://launchpad.net/lightdm/
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  xfce mailing list
>  xfce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce 
Could we recycle the current release of GDM? I would be interested in
helping fork the code and slim it down for use with Xfce.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 16:09:55 -0500
Brock Hudson <escapingsummer(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Could we recycle the current release of GDM? I would be interested
> in
>  helping fork the code and slim it down for use with Xfce.  
Well, I suppose thats possible, but even current gdm isn't very ideal
for other desktops. It basically runs a (slimmed down) gnome desktop in
the gdm session. Ideally we want something thats simple, but works well
with selinux/allows locale choices, consolekit, etc. 

kevin

[Adam Miller]

On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 04:11:12PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
<SNIP>
>  Is everybody fine with me removing 
>        * abrt-desktop
>        * gnome-packagekit
>        * system-config-date
>        * system-config-firewall
>        * system-config-services
>        * system-config-users
>  from xfce-desktop? I'd do the same as I did for LXDE [3]. 
Sounds good, but I also like the possibility of the conditional for the
abrt-desktop bit. Though, I don't think its 100% necessary it is a "nice
to have"

>  This still leaves us with the following non-Xfce packages:
>        * desktop-backgrounds-compat 
+1
>        * gdm
>        * openssh-askpass 
+1
>        * polkit-gnome 
+1
>   
<SNIP>
>   
> So the only questionable package is gdm. I think we need
a display
> manager but I'm no longer convinced it should be gdm. gdm now is in GTK+
> 3 and requires not only gnome-session but also gnome-settings-manager
> and gnome-screensaver with all their deps such as gnome-control-center.
> We'd end up with two screensavers but only xscreensaver works in Xfce.
>   
> LXDE is too buggy IMHO and I'm currently packaging
and investigating
> lightdm [4]. I'll let you know once it's read for testing and then we
> can decide whether or not to switch.
>   
> Questions? Thoughts?
I'm pretty much with everyone else, I'll happily help with LightDM if
there's any bits I might be able to lend a hand with. I think trying to
fix up LXDM in time would be a tad advantageous of us and worst case
scenario is we fall back to gdm for another release.

-AdamM