On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 15:26, Peter Backlund wrote: > tor 2005-01-20 klockan 11:20 +0000 skrev Jonathan Andrews: > > On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 08:14, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 22:43 +0000, Jonathan Andrews wrote: > > > > Is XDMCP, remote X bust in core 3 ? > > > > > > I was using it not so long ago and it was working fine. > > > > > > > I've tried the gui configuration for tool gdm. The machine has no > > > > firewall enabled - all I get the "gdm_child_action: Aborting display > > > > jonspc:1" in the log ? > > > > > > I'm suprised that's the only message you get - a glance at the code > > > suggests if you're getting this error message (which is from the master) > > > you should be getting another message from the slave. > > If found my problem, its a name resolver issue (thank you Mr Cox :-D ) > > I think email is on a go-slow, please look back if you have time. > > > > Some comments on this and a few other things > > > > 1) gdm doesn't have a process itself, it runs from init - but when gdm > > is started it seems to undergo a name change to "gdm-binary" without > > being owned by gdm or anything called gdm. As a result its not possible > > to cleanly restart gdm ? ie no "/etc/init.d/gdm restart". Am I missing > > something here or this a bit naff ? > > > You can simply kill gdm by > > pkill gdm-binary > > (or your preferred method of killing processes). init should respawn gdm > automatically. > > /Peter Yes, i'm well aware of how to do this - I was really just trying to point out that its a bit crappy ! With xdm you edit the xdm support files and re-start xdm, this is not possible with gdm. You have to find the *specific* "gdm-binary that relates to the display and kill it, if you killall gdm-binary then then you lose all sessions. This is doubly crappy as prefdm started "gdm" - this vanished without trace leaving an unknown number of gdm-binary behind. If I run A - I expect to see "A" not lots of little "B", I know its legal and possible - its just not friendly. Jon
