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