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

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Debian testing installs with XDM as dependency of Xfce fail (eventually) when switched to LightDM

On mer., 2011-09-07 at 11:02 -0400, Gilbert Sullivan wrote:

> I'll attach /var/log/syslog and the present output of dmesg. I hope the 
> files aren't too large. If so, please suggest an alternative way for me 
> to provide the information.

That's fine, I've received them directly.

> >>
> >> I am NOT seeing the Init ID "co" respawning too fast errors on any
> >> systems other than the AMD64 installations which had XDM as a dependency
> >> of Xfce4. I still have no idea whether or not those errors had anything
> >> to do with my Xfce session launch failures.
> >
> > Ok.

Could you check on those system the content of /etc/inittab too? (join
them if possible). Did you change anything there? Do you use some kind
of serial login? (I know this is weird on a laptop but...)

But in any case, I don't think those are related to the login failures.

> >>
> >> I did gather the dpkg -l information on one symptomatic AMD64 and one
> >> asymptomatic i386 system -- and I gathered lightdm.log examples, too.
> >> I'm doubtful that there's anything of interest here, since it looks very
> >> much as though the systems aren't going to fail again.
> >
> > Please share them.
> Done. Again, I hope this doesn't make the mail too large. If the normal 
> approach is to upload them to a hosting service somewhere, please let me 
> know which one you'd prefer.

It's fine :)
There are quite some difference between the systems installs (in dpkg
-l) so it's hard to say for sure.

For the lightdm log, could you explain which is which, and especially if
there's a ?failed? one there?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20110907/09e1b59e/attachment.pgp>

Reply to: