Extract Failsafe-X into its own package

Registered by Bryce Harrington on 2010-02-09

Currently we store and install the Failsafe-X files in the xorg package into /etc/gdm. Really, these should be split out into their own software package and should not be installing into /etc/gdm (failsafe-X is no longer triggered by gdm, but rather by upstart.)

Blueprint information

Status:
Complete
Approver:
Martin Pitt
Priority:
Medium
Drafter:
Bryce Harrington
Direction:
Needs approval
Assignee:
Bryce Harrington
Definition:
Approved
Series goal:
Proposed for natty
Implementation:
Implemented
Milestone target:
None
Started by
Bryce Harrington on 2011-08-31
Completed by
Bryce Harrington on 2011-08-31

Related branches

Sprints

Whiteboard

Work Items:
Decide on new name for package (xdiagnose): DONE
Copy files from xorg to xdiagnose: DONE
Set up project on launchpad for xdiagnose: DONE
Create debian packaging for xdiagnose to install failsafex files to appropriate locations: DONE
Test that failsafex package works properly: DONE
Upload xdiagnose to universe: DONE
Test that xdiagnose works when installed from universe: DONE
File MIR for xdiagnose: DONE
Remove FailsafeX files from xorg / x11-common: DONE
Create rules in xorg to remove stray failsafeX stuff from /etc/gdm: DONE
Final testing that failsafex package works properly for failsafex mode: DONE
Plan work in another blueprint to convert xdiagnose to python: DONE

seb128, 2010-08-13: dropping maverick target since it's not ready

pitti, 2010-02-10:
 - Why is it so important to not have the files in x11-common? That just sounds like a lot of painful conffile migration (and extra packaging, too) for no obvious benefit?
 - I do agree that it would be nice to move the failsafe from /etc/gdm/ into something more generic. So you think it's possible to not have any DM integration for this and just let X.org handle that all by itself?

bryce, 2010-02-11:
 - Well, having it be a stand alone package rather than be included in a larger X package has some benefits. 1: Ultimately I want to rewrite this in python since the current logic is stretching zenity's capabilities currently, so moving it into its own package would result in simpler packaging. 2: it removes a sizable chunk of delta between us and debian. 3: For bug reporting purposes it would be nice not having the failsafe bugs mixed in with more fundamental xorg bugs. 4: From a testing perspective it would simplify things to have a distinct package without a lot of x11 dependencies to go with it. 5: Long term, I can foresee this stuff being useful outside an X11 context (think failures launching wayland), or perhaps as a dependency for other tools (cjwatson was just inquiring about this today in fact).
 - We don't have any DM integration anymore. It is udev rules which fire up failsafeX now.
 - Several of the things which we put in /etc/gdm now actually don't really belong under /etc at all, but to either /usr/bin or /usr/share, since they're not configuration files but applications or application data.

pitti, 2010-02-12: Thanks for the heads-up. Sounds like it's indeed time for some cleanup.

pitti, 2010-04-23: Dropping for lucid, should transition to maverick.

bryce 2010-07-22: I've gone ahead and uploaded it to universe after testing the packaging places stuff in the correct directories in my ppa. It'll need further packaging script magic before we can consider transitioning over to it. In other news, I've started stubbing in the python reimplementation of it.

bryce 2011-08-31: xdiagnose is included in main now; this blueprint can be closed as completed. Failsafe-X works as before, and is currently being updated to work with lightdm as well.

(?)

Work Items

This blueprint contains Public information 
Everyone can see this information.