Re: rc?.d policy?
On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 03:32:26PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote
> > But if a user removes the S99xdm link in rc2.d then the next time xdm is
> > upgraded it will be added again. This issue of the package managment
> > tools over writing what the system administrator sets has been debated
> > before, in favor of the system administrator(Recall the /usr/doc/*.gz
> > issue recently on -devel). This is what I was describing. Mike, or
> > anyone else, can you clarify why Debian does not have a destinction
> > between user runlevels for things like networking, X, etc?
>
> Because no-one's written any (accepted) policy proposals to do this.
>
To turn the discussion back towards xdm per se, I've been biting
my tongue till now because I don't consider myself an expert on
Debian policy or administration (and have missed a few days' postings
due to mail trouble, so please forgive me if I'm butting into the wrong
thread), but if a user wants XDM installed but doesn't want an XDM login
screen, could/should they not simply comment out the entry for the local
display in /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers?
I run a chooser on my local xservers and have xdm installed mainly
for the XDMCP service, and this works for me; I would have thought that
it would also be correctly (or at least, better) handled by the upgrade
process. My chooser gets run by a wrapper directly out of inittab, so
I can still turn it on/off by switching runlevels if I want to.
All this assumes that the user has a reason to have xdm installed in the
first place, of course.
John P.
--
huiac@camtech.net.au
john@huiac.apana.org.au
"Oh - I - you know - my job is to fear everything." - Bill Gates in Denmark
Reply to: