Gdm removed when sugar WM removed

Mikkel L. Ellertson mellertson at
Sun Oct 23 20:31:19 UTC 2011

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.

- -- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the users mailing list