Re: why not mingetty??
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 05:39:51PM -0400, Shaleh wrote:
> Why is our default not mingetty. Several other dists use this. For
> almost all Linux boxen this is the right choice. It is easier on mem
> and cpu than agetty. Anyone who needs the other gettys also knows how
> to change their getty. I have been running mingetty for a year now and
> have had no problems. Would someone care to state a good reason why we
> should not use mingetty. Or why we must use agetty.
This seems reasonable. I am running it on all my boxes here without problem.
I did the 0.9.4-3.1 NMU libc6 compile, but I didn't check at the time
if it were still the latest version -- it may not be.
Also, lintian has two errors with it (manpage not compressed, old-fsf-address)
but there are no bugs filed. It doesn't include the debian changelog
in /usr/doc/mingetty, either (lintian doesn't seem to notice?). I may do
another upload to fix these.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: