On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 03:32:26PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote > > But if a user removes the S99xdm link in rc2.d then the next time xdm is > > upgraded it will be added again. This issue of the package managment > > tools over writing what the system administrator sets has been debated > > before, in favor of the system administrator(Recall the /usr/doc/*.gz > > issue recently on -devel). This is what I was describing. Mike, or > > anyone else, can you clarify why Debian does not have a destinction > > between user runlevels for things like networking, X, etc? > > Because no-one's written any (accepted) policy proposals to do this. >
To turn the discussion back towards xdm per se, I've been biting my tongue till now because I don't consider myself an expert on Debian policy or administration (and have missed a few days' postings due to mail trouble, so please forgive me if I'm butting into the wrong thread), but if a user wants XDM installed but doesn't want an XDM login screen, could/should they not simply comment out the entry for the local display in /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers? I run a chooser on my local xservers and have xdm installed mainly for the XDMCP service, and this works for me; I would have thought that it would also be correctly (or at least, better) handled by the upgrade process. My chooser gets run by a wrapper directly out of inittab, so I can still turn it on/off by switching runlevels if I want to. All this assumes that the user has a reason to have xdm installed in the first place, of course. John P. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oh - I - you know - my job is to fear everything." - Bill Gates in Denmark