Gdm removed when sugar WM removed

Kam Leo kam.leo at
Sun Oct 23 20:20:47 UTC 2011

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at> 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.

More information about the users mailing list