On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Here is what I'm trying to fix: Upgrading a daemon while the system is in
> runlevel 4 and the init script system is set up to stop that daemon in
> runlevel 4 is a *bug*.
Damn, I should have said "Starting a daemon in a upgrade while the
system...
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:01:31PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Here is what I'm trying to fix: Upgrading a daemon while the system is
> in runlevel 4 and the init script system is set up to stop that daemon
> in runlevel 4 is a *bug*.
ok, this makes sense.
i must have misunderstood what y
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:28:20AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > I was going to tack this sooner or later (the "trust us, we KNOW you
> > want the daemons to start always" current state of almost all daemon
> > packages annoys me to no end, and fr
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:28:20AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> I was going to tack this sooner or later (the "trust us, we KNOW you
> want the daemons to start always" current state of almost all daemon
> packages annoys me to no end, and from past flamewars I know I'm not
> the only one),
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:01:28AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > and sent patches to XFree86 a long time ago, but the patch was
> > ignored, and Dirk Hohndel basically told me I was an idiot for
> > doing so, because it might unexpecte
> On 04 Sep 2000, Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not quite. The FHS briefly mentions *System V's* runlevel 2 and
> > 3 (along with Berkley's multiuser state). It does not specify
> > anything about runlevels for Linux or any other OS.
Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
> O
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and sent patches to XFree86 a long time ago, but the patch was
> ignored, and Dirk Hohndel basically told me I was an idiot for
> doing so, because it might unexpectedly terminate the server in the
> quite common case of four X session logins i
On 04 Sep 2000, Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not quite. The FHS briefly mentions *System V's* runlevel 2 and 3
> (along with Berkley's multiuser state). It does not specify anything
> about runlevels for Linux or any other OS.
O.k., you're right - it was on linuxbase.org. Which we su
[you don't have to CC me on messages to debian-devel]
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:49:26PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:36:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > lab == lots of people == lots of NCD xterms == lots of quick logins to the
> > > DEC Unix server at the b
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:36:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > lab == lots of people == lots of NCD xterms == lots of quick logins to the
> > DEC Unix server at the beginning of a lab... sheesh
>
> Quick logins don't trigger the termination of the server.
>
> It's a login, followed by an i
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) You just made some changes in X that caused it to lock up the display.
>Magic sysreq got you out alive, but now you would like to boot to a
>console to fix it.
> b) Your monitor blew up. You've got a replacement on hand, but it won't
>work
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:25:23AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:05:09PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > > No, I can understand that. - that exact circumstance would occur in our
> > > University computer science lab. Regularly too, I might add.
> >
> > I take it this
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 09:57:56AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The code to do this has existed in xdm for a very long time, but XFree86
> > always shipped with it turned off. I turned it back on (it just involves a
> > few r
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > How come Debian don't have a "non-X" runlevel, like some other
> > distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
> > pretty convenient.
>
> Because no one has ever
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:05:09PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > No, I can understand that. - that exact circumstance would occur in our
> > University computer science lab. Regularly too, I might add.
>
> I take it this is LART-worthy incident, as I don't think I can
> load my .xsession in unde
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 09:57:56AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Dirk Hohndel basically told me I was an idiot for doing so, because it
> > might unexpectedly terminate the server in the quite common case of four X
> > session
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The code to do this has existed in xdm for a very long time, but XFree86
> always shipped with it turned off. I turned it back on (it just involves a
> few resource settings for the display manager, see the xdm manpage), and
> sen
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:51:46PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> Actually, that used to be a problem (I've had that as well, where an
> incorrectly configured X e.g. for a different card caused an infinite
> loop of switching to X and back again, so that you never have the
> chance of switching wit
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> How come Debian don't have a "non-X" runlevel, like some other
> distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
> pretty convenient.
Because no one has ever bothered to write a runlevel policy.
--
G. Branden Robi
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "EB" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> EB> perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
> EB> display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
>
> Sure. But whenever you install something t
> On 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > also debian believes in leaving the runlevel configuration to the
> > admin to define.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerfried Fuchs) wrote:
> Sure - but there is the FHS (I hope that I read it there) that
> defines what at least runlevel 2 and
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> This would be managed through a simple (for sysvinit. I don't believe it'd
> be very complex for file-rc either, but I didn't check), standard
> script/program added to the sysvinit and file-rc packages (and any other
> future packages of the same s
> "SH" == Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The reason I ask is because I've been having this exact problem
>> with gpm lately. I like to start it occasionally, because it
>> interfers with my X configuration
SH>You might be interested in the `-R' option of gpm
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> It's unfortunate that there's no easy way to find the current runlevel
> (the usual "who -r" from Solaris etc. doesn't work), otherwise this
> piece of code could be used:
>
> RL=`who -r`
> if [ -x
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > It still does not answer the original question which was about X-only/
> > non-X runlevel. In other words how to boot in multiuser mode selectively
> > with/without X. Which is quite a sensible question.
> >
> > Example:
> > I had to go int
Paul Slootman schrieb:
> On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
> Debhelper (and one of the other helper things) does this, if you
> don't call dh_installinit with the --no-restart-on-upgrade (or such)
> option. I guess the reasoning is that (a) you're upgrading in multiuser
> mode because debia
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> It still does not answer the original question which was about X-only/
> non-X runlevel. In other words how to boot in multiuser mode selectively
> with/without X. Which is quite a sensible question.
>
> Example:
> I had to go into an inter
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
>
> Example:
> I had to go into an intermediate single user mode boot on some of
> my machines after forgetting to turn off xdm after changing video cards.
> Or during dealing with laptop docking gear.
> If there was a boot with X disabled and
On 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also debian believes in leaving the runlevel configuration to the
> admin to define.
Sure - but there is the FHS (I hope that I read it there) that defines
what at least runlevel 2 and 3 are for. I would really like to see that
Debian com
Frank writes:
> Isn't ctrl-alt-F[1-6] good enough to get into console mode? In what
> circumstances whould you not want X to start up on boot if you had
> installed a *dm?
a) You just made some changes in X that caused it to lock up the display.
Magic sysreq got you out alive, but now you would
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> >
> > In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients
> > from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In this case you *NEED* a
> > *dm
> > running with network access turned on but the machine itself may
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Michael Bravo wrote:
> Monday, September 04, 2000, 3:01:42 PM, you wrote:
>
> PS> It's unfortunate that there's no easy way to find the current runlevel
> PS> (the usual "who -r" from Solaris etc. doesn't work)
>
> /sbin/runlevel can be used to find the current runlevel
So it
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "EB" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> EB> perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
> EB> display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
>
> Sure. But whenever you install something th
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
>
> In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients
> from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In this case you *NEED* a *dm
> running with network access turned on but the machine itself may not even
> h
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Are you *absolutely* sure? The reason I ask is because I've been
> having this exact problem with gpm lately. I like to start it
> occasionally, because it interfers with my X configuration
You might be interested in the `-R' option of gpm then.
Sam
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Isn't ctrl-alt-F[1-6] good enough to get into console mode? In what
> > circumstances whould you not want X to start up on boot if you had
> > installed a *dm?
> >
>
> In the circumstance when you are serving
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a display
> manager, your system will boot up in X. To get it to boot up in
> console mode, you have to manually remove the symlinks in your
> runlevel's script directory. The next
[snip]
>
> Isn't ctrl-alt-F[1-6] good enough to get into console mode? In what
> circumstances whould you not want X to start up on boot if you had
> installed a *dm?
>
In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients
from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In th
On 4 Sep 00 09:43:35 GMT, Per Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "EB" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
>>> display manager, your system will boot up in X.
>EB> is that not what you wanted when you installe
Hello Paul,
Monday, September 04, 2000, 3:01:42 PM, you wrote:
PS> It's unfortunate that there's no easy way to find the current runlevel
PS> (the usual "who -r" from Solaris etc. doesn't work)
/sbin/runlevel can be used to find the current runlevel
--
Best regards,
Michael
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
> also you mean that the symlinks are recreated, not just gpm being
> restarted right? there is an obnoxious behavior in debian where
> upgraded packages are started even if they were not running in the
> first place. (*cough* portmap *cough*) there was a
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:43:35AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Maybe, but having the option to get into console mode too would be
> nice. Sometimes, you might not want X to start up when you reboot. (I
> don't do this very often, but I know there are people that do)
the key is not everyone does
> "EB" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EB> it leaves the decision where it belongs with me.
Yeah. I think you're right about this. I just got a little confused
with my gpm problems, I guess.
EB> if that is true (and your only removing SOME of the symlinks
EB> not ALL
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Are you *absolutely* sure? The reason I ask is because I've been
Yes.
> having this exact problem with gpm lately. I like to start it
> occasionally, because it interfers with my X configuration, so I use
> to remove the symlinks. Each and every time gpm
> "EB" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
>> display manager, your system will boot up in X.
EB> is that not what you wanted when you installed *dm ?
Maybe, but having the option to get into console mode too woul
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
[...] To get it to boot up in
>console mode, you have to manually remove the symlinks in your
>runlevel's script directory. The next time you update the display
>manager, you'll have to do this again. It is not really convenient.
Upgrad
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a display
> manager, your system will boot up in X. To get it to boot up in
> console mode, you have to manually remove the symlinks in your
> runlevel's script directory. The next time you update the
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "EB" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> EB> perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
> EB> display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
>
> Sure. But whenever you install something th
> "EB" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EB> perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
EB> display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a display
manager, your system will boot up in X. To get it to
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
> (Sorry if this has been discussed earlier, and/or this is the wrong list...)
>
> How come Debian don't have a "non-X" runlevel, like some other
> distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
> pretty convenient.
(Sorry if this has been discussed earlier, and/or this is the wrong list...)
How come Debian don't have a "non-X" runlevel, like some other
distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
pretty convenient.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsu
51 matches
Mail list logo
