Michal Suchanek, le Sat 05 Jan 2013 22:47:20 +0100, a écrit : > > there is no VT switch, and pressing ^C 5s later kills the server (while > > we'd want ^C to just go to the server). The resulting Xorg.1.log is > > attached. > > I don't think that an actual VT switch is required
>From the point of the user, it is. There is no reason why it should not happen just like with other video drivers in the use case at stake. > It would be quite a few drivers to modify We can proceed just like video devices: only modify the void input driver into saying it doesn't need a VT, and the core then avoids allocating a VT only if *only* the dummy video driver and void input driver are used. > On x86 there is always the ACPI button but on some platforms nothing > like that is present so this flag would have to be set dynamically > when an input device is plugged in if set bu the input driver. Also > evdev handles keyboards and mice. Is plugging in a mouse enough to > warrant locking the tty? Is presence of synaptics or wacom device? I'm surprised that the discussion ends up with this way of thinking: shouldn't it be the converse, i.e. a VT is always allocated *except* if that is explicitly asked for by a special configuration? Otherwise we'll keep having users saying that their special use does not trigger a VT allocation... Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130105220424.gc5...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
