Package: xdm Version: 4.2.1-3 Severity: wishlist Request: refine install script for newbie When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display manager to install using install script. Great feature but one more twist shall make many newbie shut-up crying. here is my suggestion: In the dialogue to choose the desired default display manager, please add a word "console" or "disabled" as an option. The content of /etc/X11/default-display-manager can be "null" or any bogus word like "disabled" if this option is chosen. If you agree, please propagate this to other package who stole your script. This fix together with Bug#168347 should make X really easy to configure. :-) +++-==============-==============-============================================ ii xdm 4.2.1-3 X display manager rc gdm 2.2.5.5-2 GNOME Display Manager ii wdm 1.20-17 WINGs Display Manager - an xdm replacement w ii kdm 2.2.2-14 The K Desktop Manager
#include <hallo.h> * Osamu Aoki [Sun, Nov 10 2002, 02:44:13PM]: BUAHAHAHAHA, have fun convincing Branden to make a such USERFRIENDLY change. Similar story to my request to make an alternative for x-session-manager to skip the session manager and load the WM. Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
I don't see why this is preferable to two other mechanisms that Debian uses for the disabling of daemons: 1) editing /etc/init.d/* scripts to exit 0 near the top 2) removing the package Why, in particular, do display managers need a brand new mechanism?
And you will provide a debconf question about this :))) ? Both of them are not satisfactory, but then i think various efforts to solve the daemon problem are currently under work. Friendly, Sven Luther
And you will provide a debconf question about this :))) ? Both of them are not satisfactory, but then i think various efforts to solve the daemon problem are currently under work. Friendly, Sven Luther
Thanks.
I personally used to do (1).
Aren't you started /etc/X11/default-display-manager which is easy on your
debconf approach. If you use it, give option to disable all the
xdm|gdm|kdm|wdm,... If your debconf configure disabling each daemon by the
approach (1). I will be happy as long as your option include disable ALL.
For the record I list few method to disable xdm|gdm|kdm|wdm,... in my
reference:
There are few ways to disable all the X starting daemons:
* run update-rc.d ?dm stop 99 1 2 3 4 5 6
* insert "exit 0" at the[B start of all /etc/init.d/?dm files.
* rename all /etc/rc2.d/S99?dm files to /etc/rc2.d/K99?dm.
* remove all /etc/rc2.d/S99?dm files.
* run :>/etc/X11/default-display-manager
Oops, I will fix this typo. the[B -> the
#include <hallo.h> * Branden Robinson [Tue, Nov 12 2002, 04:52:46AM]: Are both not mechanisms but cludges, appliable by an admin. Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a potentialy dangerous surprise. They do not. They need a clean way to be disabled _easily_. Look at SuSE. They have a runlevel where x-display-managers starts. They have a runlevel where X does not start. Easy understandable, well described in the misc. howtos, so easy to change. Look at Debian. You have to modify some file to stop it (=break it, psychological barrier). Not a "normal" config file, some script. Or you want to change the login-manager. Why cannot you install multiple at the same time? They could be managed with an x-login-manager alternative, very easy. Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
#include <hallo.h> * Branden Robinson [Tue, Nov 12 2002, 04:52:46AM]: Are both not mechanisms but cludges, appliable by an admin. Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a potentialy dangerous surprise. They do not. They need a clean way to be disabled _easily_. Look at SuSE. They have a runlevel where x-display-managers starts. They have a runlevel where X does not start. Easy understandable, well described in the misc. howtos, so easy to change. Look at Debian. You have to modify some file to stop it (=break it, psychological barrier). Not a "normal" config file, some script. Or you want to change the login-manager. Why cannot you install multiple at the same time? They could be managed with an x-login-manager alternative, very easy. Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
No, they're both how you handle daemons in Debian. What's "dangerous" about it? Having a sudden VT switch in the middle of your upgrade procedure is also a surprise. So go propose something to debian-policy. So go propose something to debian-policy. So go propose something to debian-policy. Display managers in Debian should work like other daemons except where it doesn't make sense (as, I wouldn't argue, is the case with automatically starting as soon as they're installed, because they can "take the user's console away"). What's a login-manager?
and also very bad news if you happen to have a getty on vt7, as you just lost the ability to use the machine locally.
~# dpkg --purge xdm gdm kdm wdm It's silly to install daemons if you're not going to use them. Other distros may encourage (or even force) you to install bazillions of things you don't use, but Debian doesn't. That's one of the great things about Debian. I don't understand why we're having this debate. Note: newbies don't cry about ?dm. Newbies *like* ?dm. And newbies are *confused* by options, so adding another option, especially a silly one like this, is NOT a benefit to newbies. The only people who may be crying are former RH/SuSE/etc. users who think all the world should work like the system they're used to. And let me tell you, in my experience, once these people have the Debian Way(tm) explained to them, they are universally OVERJOYED at Debian's far-more-sensible approach.
Now, cut out that talkin' sense, boy; ol' Bloch has already made up his mind.
#include <hallo.h> * Branden Robinson [Wed, Nov 13 2002, 12:59:42PM]: Imagine you misconfigured X, eg. wrong monitor settings You see the problem and type Ctrl-Alt-Backspace quickly. Fine. Now, you continue the installation and work without X. Next morning, you boot the box and see some X thingie start. You kill it with Ctrl-Alt-Backspace. You kill it. It restarts. That is just annoying. And such things happen. Something we should have as alternative instead of hacking some config files with postinst scripts. Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
#include <hallo.h> * Branden Robinson [Wed, Nov 13 2002, 06:24:22PM]: Bla. Come down. Did you never learn to separate personal things from the work? Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
Maybe x-display-manager is a better choice of wording? Warren
You first, when you write your mails.
We've already got that.
Imagine you misconfigured sendmail, e.g., you've got it configured as an open relay. You see the problem and type "/etc/init.d/sendmail stop" quickly. Now, you continue the installation and work without a running MTA. Next morning, you boot the box and god damn it, sendmail is running again, and Paul Vixie and Craig Sanders will be adding you to every blackhole list in the world imminently. You kill the daemon again. Next time you boot, it starts up again. Etc. So there are two lessons here: 1) Learn how to disable a misbehaving daemon if you don't know how to configure it, or a thing it launches. 2) CTRL-R (man xdm) Who is hacking files with postinst scripts?
In /etc/alternatives? Warren
What good would that do? You can run multiple display managers at once, and they're hardly ever invoked from the command line.
#include <hallo.h> * Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 15 2002, 09:54:34PM]: Sendmail does not start hardware related things, having a chance to crash the box immediately. Come on - xdm postinst does not ask whether the user wishes to launch it when installed, or launch it at all. In facht, I consider filing bug reports against every *dm packages because of this policy. Take ssh as example, it asks you whether it should be executed or not. The *dm packages. Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
#include <hallo.h> * Branden Robinson [Sun, Nov 17 2002, 01:38:00AM]: What good the *dm packages do not conflict? You policy is inconsistent. Why do I get a SILLE question abot which *dm I wish to run in future when I run dpkg --purge kdm gdm ? I wish a simple debconf message telling me about how to run update-alternatives to change the settings. Since I am fan of alternatives systems and prefer it over spliting thousands of settings in thousands of conffiles, I think there should also be the /dev/null alternatives, telling *dm not to be started. a) They can be b) Alternatives are already being used for odd things, even for such that are not directly invoked as applications. Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
retitle 168601 xdm: Provide a none option during dm selection question thanks I'm resurrecting this bug because I think the users could definitely use it and it should be trivial to implement. We can deploy the code first in xdm and provide it for the other dm's to add as well. The title reflects the proper solution: provide an option in the list of dm's to select from for "none". In #debian one of the common solutions is to do essentially this to prevent any dm from starting up, and I think it'll be a great service to the user to allow this. Removing the package is less optimal now that aptitude is set to remove a whole metapackage (like x-window-system) if a single component (like xdm) is removed so we want to provide an alternative solution. This strikes me as the most elegant. - David Nusinow
Hi, This request has been tagged wontfix since 2004, and nothing has happened since 2006, so I'm closing it. The display manager question (shared/default-x-display-manager) is shared between all display manager packages, so a "none" entry would only work with coordinated support in every one of them. In the meantime both init systems provide a standard way to keep a display manager installed but not started: with systemd, "systemctl disable display-manager.service" (or "systemctl set-default multi-user.target"); with sysvinit, "update-rc.d xdm disable". Thanks, Boyuan