bug#57292: bug#59489: gdm: Accessibility icon missing in log in screen

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi Dariqq,

Dariqq <dariqq@posteo.net> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
>
> On 20.01.24 04:12, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> Since this is, as the name implies, intended for artwork or other
>> non-functional "assets", perhaps these package should be propagated by
>> the gdm package itself?  Would that have achieve the same?
>> 
>
>
> That's what I tried initially and confirmed again today that it
> doesn't work for both inputs or propagated inputs. (the icon from
> gnome-control-center is visible because the share directory will be
> included XDG_DATA_DIRS from the wrapper script from the
> glib-or-gtk-wrap phase but not he other packages).
> After that the next most simple solution was the hacky workaround via
> gnome-shell-assets. Maybe someone has a better idea for how to include
> the extra packages?

Ah, that's interesting.  It means there's probably some environment
variable that gets set and usefor the other things too, or perhaps it
searches relatively to its binary.

Ideally we could patch what it needs in the gdm package definition.  A
second option would be to wrap GDM with the paths such as XDG_DATA_DIRS
it wants.

> Also as I use the gnome-desktop via gnome-desktop-service-type all
> these packages should already be in my system profile. So somehow the
> environment is weird when shepherd starts gdm such that gdm can't find
> the extra files but I don't know enough of both guix/shepherd and
> gdm/gnome to figure out what the exact problem is.
>
>> This issue appears to have been discussed previously, although I can't
>> find it anymore...
>> 
>
> I found https://issues.guix.gnu.org/28088 which is a bit related but
> not exactly the same as there is no login manager involved.

Thanks, that's the issue I remember seeing.

I'd like to avoid abusing the gnome-shell-assets, so would welcome us
further investigating the sources of GDM to get clues as to what/where
it's looking and what it wants exactly, but otherwise with your
explanation I think this can be a first step (apply this change as is).

Does anyone have a problem with it?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim