Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes: > Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit : >> > Just because it is a tradition doesnât mean itâs the correct way. >> So far I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be the correct >> way. > > Itâs broken because: > * there are race conditions in the way VTs are allocated; > * text consoles are statically allocated, which means there are > too many for some users and not enough for some others;
They are statically used without regards for allocation. Meaning if anything allocates the tty first then the static getty just steals it leaving the system seemingly frozen. > * the display manager should run on the first VT. > >> > * New GDM upstream, as is, is completely broken. >> That seems to be the only reason. But this is clearly a bug in GDM, >> that should be fixed there. > > Yes, but there are better ways to fix bugs than mimicking already > existing bugs. > >> If you want X on another tty, change it in /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers. If you >> need more ttys, add gettys to /etc/inittab. This system is so simple and >> flexible, that I don't see how you can improve on it. > > Yeah, sure. Like, you know, dynamic VT allocation and X server. > >> So the solution is to make GDM configurable by a parameter or a config >> file to set the vt it should start on. > > You really donât know what you are talking about, do you? > >> > I donât see this as rocket science software, and it means: >> > * No useless getty processes are started. >> I never considered this to be a real problem. > > I always consider it a problem when there are unneeded processes on the > system. > >> > * tty1 is always the first VT you log on, regardless of your >> > setup. >> I don't see this as an improvement. I always want X on the same tty, no >> matter in which order I do things. Or did I misunderstand something >> here? > > X is not always on the same tty. It is only if you use an antiquity like > xdm. Even with startx, tty allocation is dynamic. > >> > * You can start an arbitrary number of text or graphical >> > consoles, without any configuration. How would the "Please press return to get a login" process know when something else (like an X session) wants the tty? >> Is this really a requirement? Where are the wishlist bugs of users >> demanding this? And anyway, a simple script that looks for the next >> free tty and spawns getty there solves this nice and easy. > > No it does not. Especially since âlooking for the next free ttyâ is not > a safe operation. Why not? What other than the getties break it? > Cheers, MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org