Created attachment 1359968 [details] Duplicated destop environment's name in lightdm. Description of problem: Two destop environments share the same name in lightdm desktop manager context menu for session login. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible – Steps to Reproduce: 1. Select environment for the login session. Actual results: See attachment. Environments may be duplicated or name is duplicated. Expected results: No duplicates as options. Additional info: Initially system was installed from Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-27-1.6.iso as virtual machine installed on disk. Then Gnome was installed manually by selecting only components whose architectures are x86_64.
I strongly suspect in this case, gnome is listed twice because one is wayland and one is x11 session, and lightdm currently makes no distinction between session type. The only login manager I know of that does that, is gdm.
Gnome can fix their own mess.
Duplicated environment name entry disappeared from lightdm login manager as a result of removing component gnome-session-wayland-session 3.26.1-1.fc27.
Created attachment 1360262 [details] Result from removing – #comment 4 As a consequence dnfdragora removed as well components that are not expected to be eligible as proper targets for removing as it is the case with gnome-classic-session. Entry Gnome Classic was no longer displayed as I realised now. Logins to any yet available Gnome environments failed even after reboot but succeed to Xfce session only. Since that I reinstalled component gnome-classic-session along automatically selected dependencies, but resolver persisted to include gnome-session-wayland-session 3.26.1-1.fc27 as one of its dependencies.
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #2) > Gnome can fix their own mess. Everything is exactly as designed on the GNOME side... moving back to lightdm but it sounds like this is maybe WONTFIX or UPSTREAM territory?
Issue alive since upgrade from v. 27 to v. 28 beta. Version-Release number of component: lightdm.x86_64 1.25.2-1.fc28 @anaconda
Taking or not taking human decisions (probably people involved in that present issue are no robot, and if they are, its just partiel yet). Decision was taken, that is all that matters. No concerting nor even a proper investigation. There is nothing bad in it; That was for a common person, which at least does not mean developer, an interesting demonstration to observe. People interact to become part of the problem but overall, not part of a larger more consensual solution. There will be no need to seek fore reasons that currently make Fedora accumulating issues and becoming a somewhat project since reasons are one. Fedora is what it is; there is nothing that can even be lost in a concept. and it is therefore just out of scope, But people can. Reasons for Fedora to have remained so long the Linux distribution it still is after all those years of chaotic efforts will have to be seek in those very single issues not handled as people would do but as developers would.
(In reply to ricky.tigg from comment #7) > Taking or not taking human decisions (probably people involved in that > present issue are no robot, and if they are, its just partiel yet). Decision > was taken, that is all that matters. No concerting nor even a proper > investigation. There is nothing bad in it; That was for a common person, > which at least does not mean developer, an interesting demonstration to > observe. People interact to become part of the problem but overall, not part > of a larger more consensual solution. There will be no need to seek fore > reasons that currently make Fedora accumulating issues and becoming a > somewhat project since reasons are one. > > Fedora is what it is; there is nothing that can even be lost in a concept. > and it is therefore just out of scope, But people can. Reasons for Fedora to > have remained so long the Linux distribution it still is after all those > years of chaotic efforts will have to be seek in those very single issues > not handled as people would do but as developers would. I don't see it as a lightdm issue, it more likely to be in the greeter. Either way I don't have the time for such a trivial issue, maybe one of the other co-maintainers care more. Either way you can report it directly to the upstreams https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/lightdm/issues https://bugs.launchpad.net/lightdm-gtk-greeter