[CentOS] Problems with getty and X on runlevel switch [Was: Re: The future of centos]

Bill Maltby (C4B) centos4bill at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 11:07:03 UTC 2015


On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 10:36 +0000, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2015-04-04, Bill Maltby (C4B)
> <centos4bill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 11:12 +0100, Nux! wrote:
> >> 100% with Digimer here.  <snip>
> >
> >> All this energy should be put into contributing towards to the
> >> project, testing, helping out community.
> >
> > Well, I used to agree. But when a bug report filed in December goes
> > untouched entering April, which I don't recall happening prior to RH
> > subsuming the project, it takes away impetus to ever file one again
> > from lowly end users like me I think.
> >
> > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=7972
> 
> Thanks for drawing my attention to that bug. I encountered it the other
> day after switching from runlevel 5 to 3 (and back again) on a CentOS
> 6.6 machine.
> 
> The purpose of the runlevel switch was to restart gdm. Is there a better
> way?
ISTR an alt-backspace to restart X (been a _long_ time)? Of course with
the apparent conflicts in underlying script/config (tries to spawn
gettys on tty1-6 expecting X to start on tty7 but X starts on tty1) I
don't know if this would work any better.

My work around is a dummy user logged in on the first session (tty1) and
use System->Log-out->Switch User from the panel to run real users on
second and subsequent sessions for other users (all me). The subsequent
sessions will start on tty7.

Nice to know I'm not the only one that tries to use system facilities
the way they were intended to work and has problems. Maybe if you touch
the bug report so they know I'm not the only one the folks will look and
elevate to RH bug just like they used to do? I was surprised that
"crash" didn't get any attention.

Bill




More information about the CentOS mailing list