Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:44:30 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: desktop@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 275885] x11/lightdm: few small improvements Message-ID: <bug-275885-39348-F90YQVf3mI@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-275885-39348@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-275885-39348@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D275885 Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |madpilot@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #1 from Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> --- Hi, I like some of these ideas, but I'm not sure this is so easy to implement r= ight away. Some thoughts: - As you state at https://github.com/canonical/lightdm/pull/287#issuecomment-1867217795 we are not completely sure the patch you import will work fine, it also has an err= or in it, so we should not import it, but create a local patch without that er= ror. I'm not sure it will work, because I'm not sure the XDG variable4s will be correctly populated at the point in time when this code runs. I also have an issue with moving the .xsession-error file. I have no attach= ment to it or its location; in fact I agree it is a poor solution to the problem= . I guess its history can be traced back to the origins of X11 But it is always been there and expected to be there. All other display managers and most X startup scripts will put it in there, so changing only = the behaviour of lightdm will hardly fix the real issue. We need to have a consistent behaviour of the while ports system. An even better solution could be making this user configurable, not autoconfigured by guessing based on XDG variables. But such a patch would be more complicated. We could also make it configurable at the port level maybe, changing the hardcoded path based on some ports variable. I'm not sure who we should discuss this with, if it should be done at a por= ts infrastructure level. - I have no strong objection to disabling qt5 and libaudit, but why you wan= t to do that? I think it would be better to put those under some options, in case someone needs them. I agree maybe this should have been done since the start of this port. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-275885-39348-F90YQVf3mI>