[note: if you don't CC: me, then I don't get your mail] On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 22:33:31 +0200 Adam Borowski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > That's definitely something to consider for stretch. I wasn't really willing > > to do that before because without having an Xfce locker I preferred staying > > with the common ground, but I also had bad interaction with the upstream > > developer and am not really interested in having more interactions. > > > > Right now, there's a way to switch to something else, which is light-locker, > > so it might be a good idea to do that indeed. I'll update the tasksel > > package > > with that in mind. > > light-locker has a hard dependency on lightdm, and if I read its description > right, it's impossible to remove. I don't think we should tie xfce to a > single display manager. It also does weird VT switching that's > disconcerting enough to be called a bug.
Xfce is not tied to lightdm or light-locker. Current situation is: - task-xfce-desktop depends on xfce4, lightdm - xfce4 depends on xfce4-session - xfce4-session recommends xscreensaver I've switched that (for stretch) to: - task-xfce-desktop depends on xfce4, lightdm, light-locker - xfce4 depends on xfce4-session - xfce4-session recommends light-locker So you'll have lightdm + light-locker by default when you select Xfce desktop when installing, but you can remove it and if you manually install xfce4 and don't install recommends you won't have it either. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
