On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:28:20AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
I was going to tack this sooner or later (the trust us, we KNOW you
want the daemons to start always current state of almost all daemon
packages annoys me to no end, and from past flamewars I know I'm not
the only one), I
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:28:20AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
I was going to tack this sooner or later (the trust us, we KNOW you
want the daemons to start always current state of almost all daemon
packages annoys me to no end, and from past
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:01:31PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
Here is what I'm trying to fix: Upgrading a daemon while the system is
in runlevel 4 and the init script system is set up to stop that daemon
in runlevel 4 is a *bug*.
ok, this makes sense.
i must have misunderstood what you
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
Here is what I'm trying to fix: Upgrading a daemon while the system is in
runlevel 4 and the init script system is set up to stop that daemon in
runlevel 4 is a *bug*.
Damn, I should have said Starting a daemon in a upgrade while the
system...
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:01:28AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
and sent patches to XFree86 a long time ago, but the patch was
ignored, and Dirk Hohndel basically told me I was an idiot for
doing so, because it might unexpectedly
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
How come Debian don't have a non-X runlevel, like some other
distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
pretty convenient.
Because no one has ever bothered to write a runlevel policy.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:51:46PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
Actually, that used to be a problem (I've had that as well, where an
incorrectly configured X e.g. for a different card caused an infinite
loop of switching to X and back again, so that you never have the
chance of switching with
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The code to do this has existed in xdm for a very long time, but XFree86
always shipped with it turned off. I turned it back on (it just involves a
few resource settings for the display manager, see the xdm manpage), and
sent
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 09:57:56AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Dirk Hohndel basically told me I was an idiot for doing so, because it
might unexpectedly terminate the server in the quite common case of four X
session logins
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:05:09PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
No, I can understand that. - that exact circumstance would occur in our
University computer science lab. Regularly too, I might add.
I take it this is LART-worthy incident, as I don't think I can
load my .xsession in under 6
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
How come Debian don't have a non-X runlevel, like some other
distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
pretty convenient.
Because no one has ever bothered
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 09:57:56AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The code to do this has existed in xdm for a very long time, but XFree86
always shipped with it turned off. I turned it back on (it just involves a
few
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:25:23AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:05:09PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
No, I can understand that. - that exact circumstance would occur in our
University computer science lab. Regularly too, I might add.
I take it this is
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) You just made some changes in X that caused it to lock up the display.
Magic sysreq got you out alive, but now you would like to boot to a
console to fix it.
b) Your monitor blew up. You've got a replacement on hand, but it won't
work (and
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:36:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
lab == lots of people == lots of NCD xterms == lots of quick logins to the
DEC Unix server at the beginning of a lab... sheesh
Quick logins don't trigger the termination of the server.
It's a login, followed by an
[you don't have to CC me on messages to debian-devel]
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:49:26PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:36:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
lab == lots of people == lots of NCD xterms == lots of quick logins to the
DEC Unix server at the
On 04 Sep 2000, Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite. The FHS briefly mentions *System V's* runlevel 2 and 3
(along with Berkley's multiuser state). It does not specify anything
about runlevels for Linux or any other OS.
O.k., you're right - it was on linuxbase.org. Which we
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
and sent patches to XFree86 a long time ago, but the patch was
ignored, and Dirk Hohndel basically told me I was an idiot for
doing so, because it might unexpectedly terminate the server in the
quite common case of four X session logins in a row
On 04 Sep 2000, Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite. The FHS briefly mentions *System V's* runlevel 2 and
3 (along with Berkley's multiuser state). It does not specify
anything about runlevels for Linux or any other OS.
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied:
O.k., you're
(Sorry if this has been discussed earlier, and/or this is the wrong list...)
How come Debian don't have a non-X runlevel, like some other
distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
pretty convenient.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
(Sorry if this has been discussed earlier, and/or this is the wrong list...)
How come Debian don't have a non-X runlevel, like some other
distributions, in the default configuration? I think this would be
pretty convenient.
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EB perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
EB display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a display
manager, your system will boot up in X. To get it to boot up
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Per Lundberg wrote:
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a display
manager, your system will boot up in X. To get it to boot up in
console mode, you have to manually remove the symlinks in your
runlevel's script directory. The next time you update the
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EB perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
EB display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
[...] To get it to boot up in
console mode, you have to manually remove the symlinks in your
runlevel's script directory. The next time you update the display
manager, you'll have to do this again. It is not really convenient.
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
display manager, your system will boot up in X.
EB is that not what you wanted when you installed *dm ?
Maybe, but having the option to get into console mode too would be
nice.
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Per Lundberg wrote:
Are you *absolutely* sure? The reason I ask is because I've been
Yes.
having this exact problem with gpm lately. I like to start it
occasionally, because it interfers with my X configuration, so I use
to remove the symlinks. Each and every time gpm is
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:43:35AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
Maybe, but having the option to get into console mode too would be
nice. Sometimes, you might not want X to start up when you reboot. (I
don't do this very often, but I know there are people that do)
the key is not everyone does it
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EB it leaves the decision where it belongs with me.
Yeah. I think you're right about this. I just got a little confused
with my gpm problems, I guess.
EB if that is true (and your only removing SOME of the symlinks
EB not ALL of them)
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
also you mean that the symlinks are recreated, not just gpm being
restarted right? there is an obnoxious behavior in debian where
upgraded packages are started even if they were not running in the
first place. (*cough* portmap *cough*) there was a bit
Hello Paul,
Monday, September 04, 2000, 3:01:42 PM, you wrote:
PS It's unfortunate that there's no easy way to find the current runlevel
PS (the usual who -r from Solaris etc. doesn't work)
/sbin/runlevel can be used to find the current runlevel
--
Best regards,
Michael
On 4 Sep 00 09:43:35 GMT, Per Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
display manager, your system will boot up in X.
EB is that not what you wanted when you installed *dm ?
Maybe, but
[snip]
Isn't ctrl-alt-F[1-6] good enough to get into console mode? In what
circumstances whould you not want X to start up on boot if you had
installed a *dm?
In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients
from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In this
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
[snip]
Isn't ctrl-alt-F[1-6] good enough to get into console mode? In what
circumstances whould you not want X to start up on boot if you had
installed a *dm?
In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a display
manager, your system will boot up in X. To get it to boot up in
console mode, you have to manually remove the symlinks in your
runlevel's script directory. The next
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, Per Lundberg wrote:
Are you *absolutely* sure? The reason I ask is because I've been
having this exact problem with gpm lately. I like to start it
occasionally, because it interfers with my X configuration
You might be interested in the `-R' option of gpm then.
Sam.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EB perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
EB display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients
from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In this case you *NEED* a *dm
running with network access turned on but the machine itself may not even
have
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Michael Bravo wrote:
Monday, September 04, 2000, 3:01:42 PM, you wrote:
PS It's unfortunate that there's no easy way to find the current runlevel
PS (the usual who -r from Solaris etc. doesn't work)
/sbin/runlevel can be used to find the current runlevel
So it does. It
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients
from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In this case you *NEED* a
*dm
running with network access turned on but the machine itself may not even
On 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also debian believes in leaving the runlevel configuration to the
admin to define.
Sure - but there is the FHS (I hope that I read it there) that defines
what at least runlevel 2 and 3 are for. I would really like to see that
Debian
Frank writes:
Isn't ctrl-alt-F[1-6] good enough to get into console mode? In what
circumstances whould you not want X to start up on boot if you had
installed a *dm?
a) You just made some changes in X that caused it to lock up the display.
Magic sysreq got you out alive, but now you would
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
Example:
I had to go into an intermediate single user mode boot on some of
my machines after forgetting to turn off xdm after changing video cards.
Or during dealing with laptop docking gear.
If there was a boot with X disabled and xdm
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
It still does not answer the original question which was about X-only/
non-X runlevel. In other words how to boot in multiuser mode selectively
with/without X. Which is quite a sensible question.
Example:
I had to go into an
Paul Slootman schrieb:
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
Debhelper (and one of the other helper things) does this, if you
don't call dh_installinit with the --no-restart-on-upgrade (or such)
option. I guess the reasoning is that (a) you're upgrading in multiuser
mode because debian
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
It still does not answer the original question which was about X-only/
non-X runlevel. In other words how to boot in multiuser mode selectively
with/without X. Which is quite a sensible question.
Example:
I had to go into an
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Paul Slootman wrote:
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
It's unfortunate that there's no easy way to find the current runlevel
(the usual who -r from Solaris etc. doesn't work), otherwise this
piece of code could be used:
RL=`who -r`
if [ -x
SH == Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason I ask is because I've been having this exact problem
with gpm lately. I like to start it occasionally, because it
interfers with my X configuration
SHYou might be interested in the `-R' option of gpm then.
Yeah, I
On Mon 04 Sep 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
This would be managed through a simple (for sysvinit. I don't believe it'd
be very complex for file-rc either, but I didn't check), standard
script/program added to the sysvinit and file-rc packages (and any other
future packages of the same
On 04 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also debian believes in leaving the runlevel configuration to the
admin to define.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerfried Fuchs) wrote:
Sure - but there is the FHS (I hope that I read it there) that
defines what at least runlevel 2 and 3 are
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:30:06AM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote:
EB == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EB perhaps because in the default configuration there is no
EB display manager, and thus no automatic runage of X.
Sure. But whenever you install something that gets you a
51 matches
Mail list logo
