On Tuesday 09 of May 2017 23:02:10 Felix Miata wrote: > Slávek Banko composed on 2017-05-06 17:39 (UTC+0200): > > Felix Miata wrote: > >> The definition of multi-user.target as I remember it is that a > >> display manager, aka login manager or greeter, is not included. Yet, > >> on Stretch, TDM is nevertheless started even though graphical.target > >> is not reached or desired, and multi-user.target is the configured > >> default. The login manager elsewhere than in Stretch is the sole > >> characteristic normally distinguishing multi-user.target from > >> graphical.target. > >> > >> So, the subject question is whether this absence of difference > >> between multi-user.target and graphical.target using TDE on Stretch > >> is expected and normal? > > > > Now I've checked that tdm.service is installed in > > /lib/systemd/system/ and nowhere is explicitly stated whether to be > > at the level multi-user.target or graphical.target. The level should > > therefore be as defined for Debian's "display manager". > > Where does one find or make the definition of 'Debian's "display > manager"'? > > Why is tdm running in the following conditions on host big31? > > # cat /etc/debian_version > 9.0 > # grep RETT /etc/os-release > PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch)" > # ll /etc/X11/def* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 21 May 9 16:32 /etc/X11/default-display-manager > # cat /proc/cmdline > ro root=LABEL=hcs5stretch net.ifnames=0 ipv6.disable=1 noresume > plymouth.enable=0 vga=791 video=1024x768@60 > # cat /etc/X11/def* > /opt/trinity/bin/tdm > # systemctl get-default > multi-user.target > # systemctl status display-manager > tdm.service - Trinity Display Manager > Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/tdm.service; enabled; vendor > preset: enabled) Active: inactive (dead) > Docs: man:tdm-trinity(1) > # systemctl status tdm > tdm.service - Trinity Display Manager > Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/tdm.service; enabled; vendor > preset: enabled) Active: inactive (dead) > Docs: man:tdm-trinity(1) > # ps -A | grep dm > 528 ? 00:00:00 rpc.idmapd > 644 ? 00:00:00 tdm > 902 ? 00:00:00 tdm > 904 ? 00:00:02 tdm_greet I think there may be one more problem - a service for systemd is called 'tdm', while 'classical' init script is called 'tdm-trinity'. I think in your case tdm can be run by a classical init script. This would correspond to the fact that tdm service is 'inactive'. Maybe it's time to rename 'classical' init script to 'tdm' instead of the current 'tdm-trinity'. Thanks to the earlier renaming of 'kdm' => 'tdm', there is no longer any conflict if the init script is to be briefly named 'tdm'. It is only necessary to test whether this will help :) Cheers -- Slávek --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
