On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 02:53:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:33:38AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Note to the other two maintainers. Branden has closed the bug I > > submitted. Based on the information he provided to me in his message I > > feel that you also should close the bugs I submitted against gdm and > > wdm. They should possibly be re-submitted at a lesser severity, but not > > as critical. Please read my message below and determine for yourself. > > > > Branden, I've just subscribed to debian-users and have yet to get any > > messages after my confirmation. Please feel free to forward this if my > > CC dosn't go through. > > > > Hmm, Just re-read my bug-report message. Used too much cut/paste to post > > the three reports. As stated in the final paragraph, I do NOT have xdm > > installed right now, I have wdm. So I relied on the fact that all 3 > > packages defaulted to tty7 and that it is applied by the wdm.postinst > > script... > > Thank you for your calm reply to my very aggravated message. I did in > fact download the sources to the standard getty program that we use and > started poking around for a solution. > > I don't know if we'll be able to implement a final solution to this problem > in time for the potato release (which will hopefully be soon), but here's > what I think: > > 1) Modifying /etc/inittab would be a bad idea because it's a very sensitive > thing; if a buggy package screws it up you may be very, very sorry. > 2) I think a better approach would be to modify the X server and console > getty programs to use lock files on the console devices. I'll want to > chat with some people I trust about file locking issues (say, MDA > maintainers :) ) before starting to hack on this. I guess this solution > would go for programs like openvt as well. It would ultimately become > Policy, but first I want to have a workable solution in place. > > I did some experimenting this evening and I've found that no programs seem > to have any respect for any others when it comes to pouncing on a VC. > getty will step on X, X will step on getty, X will step on X, etc. > > Permit me to *beseech* the other display manager maintainers to not modify > the conffiles of another package, if that's what you're doing. I expect > [gkw]dm to have their own config directories under /etc/X11/ and not fool > with mine. I would do you the same courtesy, and besides, policy says you > shouldn't. :)
Just a stupid clueless idea, but what if we start the xserver from the inittab, or at least have some line in the inittab saying that the Xserver/gdm/whatever will use the vtxx, in the same way that init starts getty's on his specific vt's ? BTW, should we have a runlevel with X and a runlevel without X ? or do we already have such a thing ? Friendly, Sven LUTHER
