[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: What happens after 2.1 ?
From:       Oswald Buddenhagen <ob6 () inf ! tu-dresden ! de>
Date:       2001-02-21 20:40:58
[Download RAW message or body]

> Do most developers have new apps or features to commit, that would involve
> much new documentation and translations, OR do most developers would rather
> keep bugfixing what's in 2.1 and get it released in 2.1.1 ?
> 
<a href="http://www.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ob6/mydiff.gz">here</a> is 
the code (or, at least, a pre-alpha of it) that probably will fix 
kdm for solaris and should also avoid future x11/c++ clashes.
the patch is obvoiusly huge. decide yourself, whether you want it in 
2.1.1 ... 
the other xdm/kdm insiders could already have a look at the code, too.

also, i would like to change a few messages. ps: i don't like the
german translations of kdm. some are unprecise or "overtranslated"
(e.g., it's ridiculous to translate "Login shell" into german, esp. 
in an error message meant for sysadmins). :-(
do the translators look at the programs they translate at all? ;)
i hope, this does not apply to the other languages ...

something "completely" different. somebody filed a wish for kdm saying
about "kdm's 'console mode' should work like the one from solaris".
implementation: shut down the current x-server and launch a getty with
a timeout. very simple. and completely different from the current solution 
(now it is a "one way road": init <whatever>). obviously, the new approach
has some advantages:
- one can return to the graphical login without root priviledges
- the manager is still running in the background, so remote x sessions
  are still possible
- it cannot cause any surprises (as opposed to a runlevel switch), 
  so it can be allowed to any user unconditionally
- it works on bsd (no runlevels ...)
otoh:
- a normal user cannot get rid of the login manager permanently any more
- there are already enough virtual terminals open - at least on linux
should i replace the current method?

best regards

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]