http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601649
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601649#c3
Felix Miata
I don't thinks it's a good idea to ignore /etc/sysconfig/displaymanager:DISPLAYMANAGER
Ignore by who/what? How can it be invalid to expect a single group installation transaction that installs KDM where no DM was previously applicable (no X components previously installed). If XDM _was_ installed on a minimal/X-free installation, why isn't that a bug of its own? (In reply to comment #1)
This is not a bug,
I disagree...
Possibly we could have no default and let the xdm init script pick one.
Any time GDM or KDM is added and XDM is set, either GDM/KDM should displace XDM, or a question should be asked by YaST/zypper/rpm which to use. I find it hard to believe any but the rarest of users of Gnome or KDE to prefer, or expect, XDM to GDM/KDM.
if anything a missing feature. yast sets the display manager on installation - and it looks xdm is the default in packaging.
How is any logic justified that results in KDM or GDM being set during install time as a consequence of selecting an X environment based upon Gnome or KDE, and the same not result when later adding a Gnome or KDE meta-package in conjuction with the _initial_ addition of any X components?
Setting a default in packages won't work as you can install gnome and kde in parallel and someone _has_ to decide what's the login manager.
Fine. Do like urpmi, and have the package manager pose a question instead of leaving an inexplicable result. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.