On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:51:33 +0100, Harald Sitter <[email protected]> wrote:
Ahoys
I was looking for some input on KDM+CK in a Logind world. When a
system is using Logind I guess KDM+CK doesn't do much useful, so the
question arose whether distributions with such a lineup should build
without CK support. In short:
If the rest of the system uses Logind, should KDM be built without CK
support?
Would building without CK support reduce user functionality, and if so
aren't we then essentially requiring distributions that use KDM to
continue using CK until Plasma Next comes along? (we are not
communicating this very if this is the case).
TIA
HS
Hey,
in Fedora, we don't distribute CK (the daemon) at all by default.
We're building KDM with the support (no real reason to put it away except
getting rid of dependency on the library) but anyway, everything should
run just fine if you don't really use any of the CK functionality... which
I doubt you do, as logind actually provides a functional superset and
every tool relying on session management already supports it (as far as I
know).
Cheers,
Martin
