On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 13:52:16 -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > It seems to me that the easiest fix for this is to not check for a running > xdm if xdm is being freshly installed ($1 = install, $2 = ""). > Would the following patch fix this for you? If so, I'll upload it ASAP.
Cheers,
Julien
Index: debian/xdm.postinst.in
===================================================================
--- debian/xdm.postinst.in (revision 4208)
+++ debian/xdm.postinst.in (working copy)
@@ -95,8 +95,9 @@
# (which we can only do if the daemon isn't running).
DENYSTART=
-# Don't start the daemon if it's already running...
-if start-stop-daemon --stop --quiet --signal 0 --pid /var/run/xdm.pid \
+# On upgrades, don't start the daemon if it's already running...
+if ( [ "$1" != install ] || [ -n "$2" ] ) && \
+ start-stop-daemon --stop --quiet --signal 0 --pid /var/run/xdm.pid \
--name $(basename $DAEMON) ; then
# Note our refusal to start the daemon if we were supposed to start it.
[ -n "$NOSTART" ] || DENYSTART=yes
Index: debian/changelog
===================================================================
--- debian/changelog (revision 4208)
+++ debian/changelog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+xdm (1:1.0.5-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * On initial install, don't check if xdm is already running, because
+ start-stop-daemon in d-i always returns true (closes: #407342). Thanks to
+ Joey Hess for the report.
+
+ -- Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:59:53 +0100
+
xdm (1:1.0.5-1) unstable; urgency=high
[ Eugene Konev ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
