[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#168601: default {x|g|k|w}dm: why not "disable" as a choice

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I don't see why this is preferable to two other mechanisms that Debian
> > uses for the disabling of daemons:
> > 
> > 1) editing /etc/init.d/* scripts to exit 0 near the top
> > 2) removing the package
> Are both not mechanisms but cludges, appliable by an admin.

No, they're both how you handle daemons in Debian.

> Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a
> potentialy dangerous surprise.

What's "dangerous" about it?

Having a sudden VT switch in the middle of your upgrade procedure is
also a surprise.

> They do not. They need a clean way to be disabled _easily_. Look at
> SuSE. They have a runlevel where x-display-managers starts.

So go propose something to debian-policy.

> They have a runlevel where X does not start.

So go propose something to debian-policy.

> Easy understandable, well described in the misc. howtos, so easy to
> change. Look at Debian. You have to modify some file to stop it
> (=break it, psychological barrier). Not a "normal" config file, some
> script.

So go propose something to debian-policy.  Display managers in Debian
should work like other daemons except where it doesn't make sense (as, I
wouldn't argue, is the case with automatically starting as soon as
they're installed, because they can "take the user's console away").

> Or you want to change the login-manager. Why cannot you install multiple
> at the same time? They could be managed with an x-login-manager
> alternative, very easy.

What's a login-manager?

G. Branden Robinson                |      To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      cultivation of the ability to
branden@debian.org                 |      unlearn old falsehoods.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: pgp1tA3yzsMLO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: