On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:09:47PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > Provides: login(display) > > > > What about: > > Provides: runlevel(5) > > If at some point in the future, runlevel becomes a meaningless construct, > that dependency may not be logical. > > 5 is, after all, an arbitrary tradition that isn't even required by > the LSB. I agree, I think it is better to stick on a conceptual graphical login manager versus console based (or even head-less) login manager. something like login(display) (or login(graphical), or whatever) could still be extended later with login(somethingelse). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
