Le jeudi 24 février 2011 à 23:32 +0100, Vincent Lefevre a écrit : > > This is not the same software. It is not compatible. Should we also > > document the differences with xdm, slim and kdm? > > You miss the point that gdm3 is described as the successor of gdm:
Successor, yes. Compatible, no. Otherwise it would have been named the same. > > > * there should be a dialog box at first install time mentioning > > > these differences. > > > > WTF? > > Packages often do this when an upgrade yields incompatible changes > that require attention. For the reasons why I consider this as an > upgrade, see above. But if the end user is not the admin of the > machine, such a dialog box would be useless, so perhaps not a good > idea, finally. It is forbidden to use debconf to that effect. Usually this is done in NEWS.Debian files, but it is irrelevant in this case since this is not the same package. > > yelp ghelp:gdm > > That's not a standard way to read a manual file... perhaps under > GNOME, but gdm is just a display manager shared by several users, > and not all users use GNOME (FYI, I don't). So what? > Moreover this manual doesn't seem to mention the XAUTHORITY > environment variable (that's the most important point, since > this is what the user really sees about the location of the > X authority file, and this is where something is likely to > break, everything else being mostly internals). > > Also the manual should use the standard terminology, that is > at least one of: > .Xauthority file > authorization file > X authority file > like in the main man pages about the subject (xauth(1), Xsecurity(7), > X(7), Xserver(1)). Feel free to propose patches to the user manual at bugzilla.gnome.org. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `- […] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part