Bug 17325

Paulo (pcpa): are there any specific reasons why these patches are not upstreamed?

(In reply to comment #1)
> Paulo (pcpa): are there any specific reasons why these patches are not
> upstreamed?

  None that I know of. But I am afraid I don't understand consolekit
very well. I did the patch upon request, based on kde3 kdm's patches.

  But I was told it is working correctly.

While I don't understand what all the changes in those patches are for,
I do understand the GPLv2 header in the new consolekit files - X.Org does
not accept any GPL licensed code in our apps, so these patches will not
be acceptable until relicensed under an MIT-style license.

From a technical standpoint:
- 0004-Support-kdm-extended-syntax-to-reserve-a-server-for.patch 
   - is this really needed for consolekit?   This seems unrelated.

-0005-Initialize-the-greeter-only-after-checking-if-the-th.patch 
   - seems reasonable, though I wonder about side-effects in people's
     setup scripts, if any assumed the xdm greeter window was displayed first

-0006-Ass-console-kit-support-to-xdm.patch
   - I might make this a bit less #ifdef heavy, but it seems okay

-consolekit-xdm/0007-Add-files-required-by-consolekit-support.patch
   - I don't know enough dbus or consolekit to comment on most of this
   - The /proc/%d/stat section would need to be #ifdef linux

Created attachment 28437 [details] [review]
xdm-consolekit.diff

This is a patch by Takashi Iwai we're planning to use for openSUSE 11.2. See 

  https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528829

for more details.

Created attachment 34643 [details] [review]
xdm-consolekit.diff

Now with better error message when console-kit-daemon is not available/running

It seems nobody apart from Mandriva/openSUSE is interested into having this support in xdm. Hence closing as WONTFIX.

(In reply to comment #6)
> It seems nobody apart from Mandriva/openSUSE is interested into having this
> support in xdm. Hence closing as WONTFIX.

Untrue as both ArchLinux and Gentoo are carrying custom patch to enable native ConsoleKit support in XDM too.

Can we reopen this bug, please?

Four downstream dists seem like enough.

Reviews of each of the three as of yet unreviewed patches are welcome.

These urls are mentioned in Gentoo’s patch:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/360987
http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/trunk/xdm-consolekit.patch?h=packages/xorg-xdm
http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-February/019615.html
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=615020


Samuli:  I don’t see any license info in the patch in portage; it is definitively under an MIT-style license?

(In reply to comment #8)
> Four downstream dists seem like enough.
> 
> Reviews of each of the three as of yet unreviewed patches are welcome.

Yes, as maintainer, I've been waiting for someone to review the patches
on the xorg-devel list (since I don't have time to learn enough about the
consolekit API myself to figure out if they're doing the right things) and 
not really caring if someone is playing games with the bug state here 
because they're feeling pissy.

Hopefully between those four dists you can find at least *one* person
willing to put in the time to give the patches a review.

I will impose only two absolutely required conditions on such patches:
 - Unlike the first set submitted for this bug, they must be under a
   MIT license, not changing the xdm license to GPL or anything else.
 - They must do whatever autoconf or other checks are necessary to 
   avoid breaking systems without consolekit.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Four downstream dists seem like enough.
> 
> Reviews of each of the three as of yet unreviewed patches are welcome.
> 
> These urls are mentioned in Gentoo’s patch:
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/360987
> http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/trunk/xdm-consolekit.patch?h=packages/xorg-xdm
> http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-February/019615.html
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=615020
> 
> 
> Samuli:  I don’t see any license info in the patch in portage; it is
> definitively under an MIT-style license?

The patch in Arch and Gentoo is modified (improved) copy of the OpenSuSE patch. So license is presumably same as what OpenSuSE is using for their patch.

(In reply to comment #9)
>  - They must do whatever autoconf or other checks are necessary to 
>    avoid breaking systems without consolekit.

This seems to be covered with the Arch/Gentoo patch based on testing. Tested it pretty exhaustively before pushing it to our users.

Sure, my patch just follows the license of the original code.  So it's in MIT/X11 license.

> Sure, my patch just follows the license of the original code.  So it's
> in MIT/X11 license.

Cool.  And to be clear, I only asked because of the license issue with
the first patch on this bug report.

Mass closure: This bug has been untouched for more than six years, and is not
obviously still valid. Please reopen this bug or file a new report if you continue to experience issues with current releases.