On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:30:03PM -0800, Mark Montague wrote: > Sven LUTHER <luther@debian.org> writes: > > > Just a stupid clueless idea, but what if we start the xserver from the > > inittab, or at least have some line in the inittab saying that the > > Xserver/gdm/whatever will use the vtxx, in the same way that init starts > > getty's on his specific vt's ? > > This is what HPUX does, for what that's worth. It seems to work OK. Well, it's also conceptually suspicious to do things this way. After all, xdm *itself* doesn't *need* a virtual console. If xdm manages more than one local server, it needs more than one VC. If xdm manages only remote servers, it needs no VC's at all. If we're going to modify inittab, we to be able to 1) relocate entries in an automated and almost foolproof way, and/or 2) have some kind of dummy program that sits on a VC and only lets a certain kind of process displace it. I continue to think it is more elegant to simply have the VC-using programs look before they leap, using a lockfile mechanism or something similar. This seems to me to get more at the heart of the problem anyway. > It doesn't look like Debian distinguishes between 2,3,4,5, at least on > my woody-with-filerc-i386 system. The general consensus seems to be that it is better to leave runlevel management up to the system admin. (They might be in an organization with its own standards of runlevel management.) But AFAIK, this issue hasn't been raised on any of the development lists in quite a while. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | belly laugh. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | -- Robert Heinlein roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpxc4RyBgO5P.pgp
Description: PGP signature