Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic:  Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?  (Read 3157 times)

Offline michaa7

  • User
  • Posts: 2.295
Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« on: 2014/12/06, 18:23:18 »
I'm asking because "init 3" does not work anymore with my system (sysvinit-core installed)?
Ok, you can't code, but you still might be able to write a bug report for Debian's sake

Offline michaa7

  • User
  • Posts: 2.295
Re: Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« Reply #1 on: 2014/12/07, 01:03:13 »
It seems siduction has altered the config for the runlevels. kdm, which I use instead of lightdm is now configured for RL 2-5 whereas it used to be configured for RL5 only. But what really is being in the way is sidu-base. I needed to deconfigure it entirely to get init to work agian. There may be other ways to configure it, but this seems the easiest way.
Ok, you can't code, but you still might be able to write a bug report for Debian's sake

Offline convbsd

  • User
  • Posts: 92
Re: Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« Reply #2 on: 2014/12/07, 03:38:44 »
Init 3 works with lightdm.
It's a systemd issue kdm related.
KDM doesn't have until now systemd support and kdm defaults for debian are RL 2-5.
So siduction hasn't altered kdm config runlevels.

Offline michaa7

  • User
  • Posts: 2.295
Re: Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« Reply #3 on: 2014/12/07, 04:29:40 »
Thanks for this exhaustive info. You're aware I don't use systemd?

Do you have any insight what exactly sidu-base does? Because I didn't get init to work until I disabled it for RL 2-5.
Ok, you can't code, but you still might be able to write a bug report for Debian's sake

Offline melmarker

  • User
  • Posts: 2.799
    • g-com.eu
Re: Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« Reply #4 on: 2014/12/07, 13:55:03 »
sidu-base is the base package for sidu-manual, sidu-installer - delete it, if you don't use it.
Regarding kdm and sysvinit: you are on your own, we don't support it anymore.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755)
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Hanlons razor)

Offline piper

  • User
  • Posts: 1.785
  • we are the priests ... of the temples of syrinx
Re: Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« Reply #5 on: 2014/12/07, 15:28:10 »
I am not even sure if kde/kde-devs supports kdm anymore
Free speech isn't just fucking saying what you want to say, it's also hearing what you don't want to fucking hear

I either give too many fucks or no fucks at all, it's like I cannot find a middle ground for a moderate fuck distribution, it's like what the fuck

Offline rueX

  • User
  • Posts: 135
Re: Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« Reply #6 on: 2014/12/15, 14:15:38 »
Zitat melmarker: "Regarding kdm and sysvinit: you are on your own, we don't support it anymore"

apt-cache policy sysvinit*
...
sysvinit-utils:
  Installiert:           2.88dsf-58

apt-get purge sysvinit-utils
...
WARNUNG: Die folgenden essentiellen Pakete werden entfernt.
Dies sollte NICHT geschehen, außer Sie wissen genau, was Sie tun!
  e2fsprogs util-linux (wegen e2fsprogs) init systemd-sysv (wegen init) sysvinit-utils initscripts (wegen
  util-linux)
0 aktualisiert, 1 neu installiert, 274 zu entfernen und 0 nicht aktualisiert.
Es müssen 42,6 kB an Archiven heruntergeladen werden.
Nach dieser Operation werden 892 MB Plattenplatz freigegeben.
Sie sind im Begriff, etwas potentiell Schädliches zu tun.
Zum Fortfahren geben Sie bitte »Ja, tue was ich sage!« ein.
 ?]


it seems a little dangerous  :o

Offline melmarker

  • User
  • Posts: 2.799
    • g-com.eu
Re: Q: did siduction actively disable "init 3"?
« Reply #7 on: 2014/12/15, 17:24:18 »
Clarification: we don't support kdm and sysvinit - that doesn't mean that one have to remove sysvinit-utils :)
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755)
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Hanlons razor)