1 |
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 6:02 AM Aisha Tammy <gentoo.dev@×××××.cc> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 10/18/20 2:29 AM, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
4 |
> > On 10/18/20 8:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> >> Do you really think a rename for the sake of renaming justifies |
6 |
> >> requiring all users to rewrite their configuration? While we're |
7 |
> >> requiring the users to do that, wouldn't it be better to stop using |
8 |
> >> the awful layout of 'one script to run them all', and switch to separate |
9 |
> >> scripts for every DM? |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> > This is exactly what I proposed in the previous RFC, systemd already |
12 |
> works this way and is IMHO a lot clearer to use. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > -- juippis |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> |
17 |
> This would need some more tinkering as OpenRC doesn't have a dedicated |
18 |
> mechanism to control vt's while systemd controls the vts. |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
Aside from that... |
22 |
|
23 |
Additionally we would need to able to say that each of them is going to |
24 |
> conflict |
25 |
> with the other. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
What conflict? Each package should have an init script with a matching |
29 |
name. The only conflict might arise from |
30 |
putting both in the same runlevel (assuming they don't just take the next |
31 |
available VT). If a user wants to try out |
32 |
a different DM, it is simpler IMHO to |
33 |
/etc/init.d/old-dm stop && /etc/init.d/new-dm start |
34 |
than editing xdm.conf. If new-dm crashes the system for whatever reason, no |
35 |
need to remember to edit xdm.conf |
36 |
to restore your old choice; just reboot and old-dm which was in the default |
37 |
runlevel is still your DM. |