Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:31:47 +0100 From: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> To: dejan.lesjak@ijs.si Cc: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: xdm rc scripts Message-ID: <200502192031.47862.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El Sábado, 19 de Febrero de 2005 19:55, Dejan Lesjak escribió: > On Friday 18 of February 2005 22:25, Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > > Hi, > > I launch PRs ports/74000 and ports/74003 time ago, to make launch > > of xdm from a rcNG script possible (Not mandatory). > > > > I think that this must be part of X11 clients ports, but if someone > > find any issue with this, let me know. > > Hi, > Some of my issues: > In my opinion there is no need for a rc script to start xdm, since > this is already taken care of by /etc/ttys which also starts gettys > on other ttys - so all of gettys and xdm, which "[...] provides > services similar to those provided by [...] getty [...]" are in one > place. This putting of configuration of things which are similar > seems to be exactly what you intended, or am I completely mistaken? Not really. First, the offered scripts are the only method I know to unifor launch xdm/gdm/kdm. gdm can't be launch from /etc/ttys. > Furthermore the PRs you submitted would require us to patch XFree86 > and X.Org code which is not necessary, because that code is perfectly > fine and has worked, works and probably will work for some time to > come. We have in X11 ports quite a few of patches which are needed to The patches to Xorg/X11 code are not needed for the scripts. Only install the rc script. The patches try to solve a real race problem between init (the gettys) and gdm (which must be launch from localpackage). This is documented in main XFree86/Xorg docs. If gdm/xdm/kdm doesn't have 'hard assigned' an vt, it may stole vt (in the FreeBSD case, vt0/vt1) if it get running before init launch gettys. If this happens (I often get this in fast machines), you may end in front of a gdm login script, with mouse, but without any keyboard input. > split installation of X11 distribution into separate pieces to > hopefully ease maintenance for users in case where only one component > needs updating. These are the patches that will never be submitted to > upstreams, since they are completely ports specific and both of X11 > build fine without them. Your patch to > programs/xdm/config/Imakefile would increase the burden of > maintaining local patches for what, at least to me so far, doesn't > seem like something that actually needs patching - xdm on FreeBSD > will take the first virtual terminal available so hardcoding default > doesn't seem to be the right way. Which brings me to another point... > In your PR, you mention "race problems". Could you please explain Allready done. > what do you mean by this. If there is a problem that would be > introduced with starting xdm through rc script, then that is another > reason not to abandon the long time documented way of doing things, > which works quite well. Note that this only goes for xdm. If there is I still have some FreeBSD-2.x machines running, but I prefer install FreeBSD-5. I think there're really good reasons to _permit_, not _force_ the use of a rcNG script. > any script eventually included in either X11 -clients, then that > script cannot take responsibility of starting things which come from > other ports such as gdm or kdm (BTW, you forgot wdm). Kdm and gdm Point me to the port and I'll take a look on this. > have their own maintainer teams who know how to start their programs > properly and intruding into their territory with this script seems > neither appropriate nor wise (consider that the way in which wdm > starts changes in one version - how intuitive would it be to expect > people to upgrade xorg-clients to get wdm working, not to mention why > would people who don't use wdm or any foodm for that matter need to > upgrade their ports). In short: stuffing startup of all display > managers into one script would seem a bad idea. rcNG have enough resorces to cope with this without need of futher scripts cahnges. > So I haven't been convinced so far that making rc script for purpose > of starting a kind of getty would be either needed or something that > would simplify things. I don't believe that rc.conf is the only file > users edit after their FreeBSD installation. I also don't believe > that it would be good if things were changed so that rc.conf would be > the only file users would need to edit. There was mentioned a > question of policy vs. features among the thread discussing this... I > don't believe a policy is dictated by having an example of starting > xdm in /etc/ttys file - users can still make their own rc script if > they want and configure it as it fits their purpose, be it "old > style" rc script or rcNG one. > > > Dejan well, I'll close the PRs. thanks for your time, -- josemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502192031.47862.josemi>