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.
Can this be quantified, please?
Changing the default will disrupt the integrity of everyone who is
relying on it. [Not me, personally, I'm using mgetty where it matters.]
Aside: I'm surprised that /sbin/getty isn't managed using
update-alternatives. I presume that this means that the different
getties aren't very interoperable?
I realize that at present, just installing mingetty doesn't free up
the space taken up by agetty in the util-linux package. Perhaps agetty
should be factored out into its own package? [Of course, this is a slink
issue, rather than a hamm issue.]
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: