Hello, Ricardo Wurmus writes: > L p R n d n writes: > >>> I built a VM and noticed that all icons are missing. Should the service >>> arrange for a certain fallback icon theme to be installed? >> >> If you only added (service-type lightdm-service-type) without any >> greeter, it's expected. >> LightDM without autologin needs a greeter. So in this case you just get >> a "fallback" session to avoid unnecesseraly breaking the user's >> system. I choose not to bring lightdm-gtk-greeter's assets to give the >> user a little push toward adding a greeter service. > > Ah, now I understand the comment in lightdm-profile-service. Sorry, my comment was not clear :/ > I think the default configuration should take care of all this. It > seems problematic to me that users specify “greeter-session” as a mere > string, but the corresponding greeter may not even be installed. That’s > also what’s bothering me about the greeter search directories. I agree but just to clarify the current behavior: * A user can either define only a lightdm-service, only greeter-service.s or both. * There can be multiple greeter services defined hence allowing different greeters, greeter configurations or assets for different seats * Greeters' services extend the lightdm-service so the latter is really only needed if you want to modify the default confiuration or do not define any greeter. * A seat defined in a greeter service have its `greeter-session overwritten + get the greeter package for free. This is why defining seats through the greeter is preferred. Hope it's clear, I had some troubles with the possessive in those sentences... > Would it make sense to let “greeter-session” be a *package* instead of a > string? Then we could specify the lightdm-gtk-greeter package as the > default and use its output directory as the lookup directory for > greeters — instead of the global system profile. Yet, it's better, yes! So we remove the `greeters-directory field from the `lightdm-configuration and use a package as input of the greeter-session field of `lightdm-seat-configuration, right? > I think this would be more elegant and reduce potential for > misconfiguration. What do you think about this? > >> It's very arguable >> so if you think we should bring in assets too, let's do it. I can >> prepare a patch if you want. > > What do you mean by assets? Which package provides them? I meant the assets used by the greeter. They're defined in the `lightdm-gtk-greeter-configuration-assets field of the lightdm-gtk-greeter's configuration. It's really the only thing lacking in the fallback session. A little patch that should be enough to fix the missing icons.