[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#822946: Don't set console setting over logout/login



On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:39:49PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> > 
> > printf '\033%%@'
> > 
> > Does this reconfigure the console to use ISO-8859-1?
> 
> I already tried that and yes, it works. (or print '\033%@') So when I
> read that correct (The information about <esc>% is very rar) that sets
> the default settings. Shouldn't that be the "default" anyway?

I suppose now

printf '\033%%G' 

is the default in the kernel, that is UTF-8,
 
> I think I have configured Terminus font on all systems. But I have to 
> crosscheck.

My question was in order to see whether console-setup sets the font as 
expected or not.

>    ~> grep 'tty[0-9]$' /etc/inittab
>    1:45:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty1
>    2:23:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty2
>    3:23:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty3
>    4:23:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty4
>    5:23:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty5
>    6:23:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty6
> 
> I use mingetty on all systems. And console 1 is only allowed for login
> in init level 4 and 5 and never clears as I need to have the boot
> messages.

Hmm, I've never used mingetty, but isn't it possible that it shows the 
same behaviour as systemd, that is it disallocates the tty after each 
logout?  In order to test this try adding the option --noclear to all 
instances of mingetty.

If the option --noclear fixes the problem, then there will be two things 
we can do.  First, maybe file a bug against mingetty (I don't know if 
this should be considered a bug or a feature of mingetty...).  And 
second, try to do something about the problem in console-setup.

In the file /lib/udev/rules.d/90-console-setup.rules console-setup 
installs the following rule:

ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="vc", KERNEL=="vcs[1-9]|vcs[1-9][0-9]", TEST=="/run/console-setup/font-loaded", RUN+="/etc/console-setup/cached_setup_terminal.sh %k"

In theory this should reconfigure a tty each time it is allocated.

Anton Zinoviev


Reply to: