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