From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Feb 29 07:53:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA18822
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA18809
          Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:53:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199602291553.HAA18809@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: xdm running two sessions HOW?
To: dawes@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au (David Dawes)
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Cc: kaleb@x.org, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199602291329.AAA29395@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au> from "David Dawes" at Mar 1, 96 00:29:53 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

David Dawes wrote:
> Kaleb Keithley (sp?) wrote:
> >I'm pretty sure there's a race condition even though your xdm-error log
> >shows that two servers did use two different VTs. You probably want to 
> >use the -vt option to force a particular server onto an explicit VT, e.g.:
> >
> >:0 local /usr/X11R6/bin/X :0 -vt 3
> >:1 local /usr/X11R6/bin/X :1 -vt 4

	i will try this tonight.  maybe sooner ;)

> Yes, there is a race there.  There could be a little more to it as well.
> When I experimented with this a while ago, I found that I needed to run
> the servers via a script which first switched to a text VT, waited for
> a few seconds, then started the server.  I haven't tried this recently,
> but just doing the sleep wasn't sufficient.
> 
> The script I had used the old syscons utility from FreeBSD 1.x (now
> replaced by kbdcontrol and vidcontrol, neither of which allow you to
> switch VTs from the command line):
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> /usr/local/bin/syscons -t 1 </dev/ttyv0
> sleep 3
> exec X "$@"

	i dont have a syscons executalbe!  where do i find one?  
	saw this technique in the mail archives.  you had 
	mentioned it to me once before ;)

> I'm not sure exactly why this is necessary.  It may be possible to modify
> the servers so as to avoid the need for this VT switch.  If anyone has
> any ideas/suggestions about this, let me know.
> 
> David
>