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