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

Bug#186729: xdm: dpkg --configure xdm gives message on kdm then halts

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au> writes:

    Daniel> tags 186729 unreproducible moreinfo severity 186729
    Daniel> important title 186729 [xdm]: postinst fails, maybe only
    Daniel> when not default ?dm thanks

    Daniel> On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:39:39PM +0100, Chris Searle
    Daniel> scrawled:
    >> Package: xdm Version: 4.2.1-6 Severity: grave Tags: sid
    >> Justification: renders package unusable
    >> Updated - and xdm throws an error about configuring kdm. This
    >> prevents xdm from completing, and so x-window-system will not
    >> complete either. This (at present) means that I have no X
    >> running :-(

    Daniel> What's the output if you run sh -x
    Daniel> /var/lib/dpkg/info/xdm.postinst? Is kdm still installed?

+ set -e
+ THIS_SCRIPT=postinst
+ trap 'message;      message "Received signal.  Aborting xdm package postinst script.";      message;      exit 1' HUP INT QUIT TERM
+ which readlink
+ . /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
++ '[' '!' '' ']'
++ exec /usr/share/debconf/frontend /var/lib/dpkg/info/xdm.postinst
 System startup links for /etc/init.d/xdm already exist.

So I took a look at /etc/init.d/xdm - it looks like a standard init.d
script. rwxr-xr-x root root.

    Daniel> It doesn't render the package unusable, BTW - a simple
    Daniel> /etc/init.d/<preferreddesktopmanager> start, will give you
    Daniel> your desktop back, so I'm tagging this back to important.

OK - thanks for the info. Hadn't spotted that.

    Daniel> Oh, and xdm not starting will never prevent you from using
    Daniel> kdm.

No - it was more that it stopped the x-window-system package from
completing too. xdm is my normal dm of choice - was just wanting a
look at kdm/gdm etc - should have left well alone :-)

Chris Searle          | Unix _IS_ user friendly...
chris@chrissearle.org | It's just selective about who its friends are.

Reply to: