[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#679409: lightdm: Fails to start on boot, invoke-rc.d lightdm start fails

Steve Langasek vorlon at debian.org
Tue Aug 21 23:04:46 UTC 2012

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:28:07PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:53:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:48:02AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 03:37:52PM +1000, James Tocknell wrote:

> > > I've patched startpar to special-case lightdm as for gdm/kdm, but this
> > > doesn't appear to have any effect here (but is probably generally a good
> > > thing to have).

> > The change that was committed has nothing at all to do with this bug, and to
> > me it looks like an unnecessary divergence from startpar upstream; so I've
> > reverted those changes from the git repo.  IMHO it's not something that's
> > worth carrying a delta from upstream over.  But feel free to reinstate if
> > you disagree.

> My thinking here was that if startpar is special casing the priorities
> of display managers, shouldn't it be behaving the same for all the
> common ones?  That said, I am not certain /why/ it's special casing
> them in the first place; certainly lightdm appears to function
> perfectly well without the patch.  I don't have strong feelings either
> way here--personally I'd prefer them all removed if this is solely to
> hack in something better expressed through dependencies.

It's not a dependency at all, only a priority.  Startpar *may* start
everything in parallel, or it may rate limit the number of services starting
simultaneously; and in either event the priority says that the DM should be
started first before any other services that are ready to start, because
it's the most important thing to get up and going (if present).

So yes, it makes sense for these to be consistent; my point is only that
this is such a minor thing that it's not important enough to warrant
carrying a delta from upstream, and it's better to just get it upstreamed
first.  But I also don't have strong feelings.

> > BTW, Roger, could you please run 'echo DEBCHANGE_RELEASE_HEURISTIC=changelog
> > >> ~/.devscripts' on your development machine?  This is the only sensible
> > behavior to use with dch in a shared VCS; it's very frustrating to have to
> > check the archive or look at git tags each time to figure out whether the
> > changes I'm looking at on trunk are uploaded or not...

> I've done this, but isn't it the documented default behaviour?

A recent change, first landed in unstable in May.  Assuming your changelog
entries are created using dch, it appears you probably weren't running that
version. :)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20120821/f1652d80/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list