On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > can anyone think of a reason the rc.d scripts are added to kdm, gdm and > slim? They are not recommended by anyone & they are to be blame for > occasional weird problems. The standard and IMO only way is to start > them from inittab. > They dont come from upstream & i dont know when they were added, i > remember them being there ever since i started using Arch, they may > come from CRUX or something. > I am considering requesting them removal from all display managers. > In [0] Pierre said some people want to keep them for backwards > compatibility. Backwards compatibility is desired only when something > works correctly. Thoughts? While I don't have a firm opinion about this, I tend to disagree with you. I have always been using the rc.d scripts and find they work fine. We don't really implement runlevels in Arch, so the half-way approach of using the runlevels to control only one daemon seems strange to me. Why is kdm/gdm/slim different from all the othe daemons we have. How would you make sure e.g. kdm was started before (or after) another daemon if you use the runlevel approach? The specific bug you pointed out is not particular to KDM/GDM/slim, but should be fixed for all daemons (proper inheritance of LOCALE), and it is on our TODO list. Just my two cents, -t
