Re: gdm (or X) broken on woody help ! urgent
David Purton writes:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 Dinh-Tuan.Pham@imag.fr wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Yesterday I upgrade an intel box to the lastest release of
> > woody. Suddenly gdm ceases to work. Launching
> > /etc/init.d/gdm start
> >
> > nothing happens, except that the message
> >
> > Starting gdm appears
> >
> > Switching to the vt7, I see just a x cursor. Launching "ps aux" I see
> > that gdm is inded running and the server X has also been start but its
> > is marked as defunt !
> >
> > This is a very serious matter, gdm login is a must because an
> > ordinary cannot work on the console. Not me, but now I am in great
> > trouble because I break this machine. I shouldn't mess with it, but
> > then I like to have the latest version gnome and if I wait for woody
> > to release it would be one year !
> >
> > I finally throw away gdm and intall xdm. It works but only after about
> > 1 minute of wait. At first, just like gdm; nothing happens, only an x
> > cursor displayed (if you switch to vt7)
> >
> > I could of course sent a bug report, but I am not sur it is really a
> > bug of gdm or of X, because cdm seem to be affected too. But startx
> > work fine. But the point is that I need a fix _right now_
> >
>
> I also had this problem when I upgraded to X4.
> I can't remember exactly what I did, but I think I changed
> DisplayManager*authorize: from true to false in /etc/X11/xdm/xdm-config
Is it really false, that is not authorized ?
>
> If this doesn't work - poke around in the archives or look for other
> authorization stuff in the xdm setup files.
Thank. But the problem concern gdm and not xdm. And there is no
mention about authorization is the files in /etc/gdm.
I have indeed suspect that this is an authorization problem. But only
an expert could figure out what should be done (and I am not a newbee)
--
PHAM Dinh Tuan | e-mail: Dinh-Tuan.Pham@imag.fr
Laboratoire de Modelisation et Calcul | Tel: +33 4 76 51 44 23
BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9 (France) | Fax: +33 4 76 63 12 63
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: