View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
GOS Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 09 Sep 2010 Posts: 105 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2024 2:46 pm Post subject: [solved] sddm starts on vt2 instead of vt7 |
|
|
Hello,
unfortunately, never versions of sddm ignore the "MinimumVT=" flag in "/etc/sddm.conf" by intention. Hence, sddm starts on vt2 instead of vt7 (I use OpenRC). On the other hand, one can restart sddm via "/etc/init.d/display-mananger restart" and then it starts on vt7.
I assume that this is, because at the moment that "/etc/init.d/display-mananger" starts the first time at boot, agetty has only established tty1 on vt1 and therefore sddm uses vt2.
Later, if one restarts "/etc/init.d/display-mananger" agetty has established all tty 1-6 on vt 1-6 and therefore sddm can only use vt7.
So my question is: Has anyone an idea to circumvent that problem / Is there a method that agetty establishes all tty 1-6 before "/etc/init.d/display-mananger" starts the first time?
Thanks in advance
GOS
Last edited by GOS on Tue Oct 15, 2024 11:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ralphred l33t
Joined: 31 Dec 2013 Posts: 664
|
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I moved the terminal lines in /etc/inittab for tty 2 through 6 to after the boot command, but before the runlevel definitions.
I mentioned this a while ago when sddm went to >0.19, no one has told me "you shouldn't do that because" yet, and it restores the desired behaviour.
I might look at sddm again after a couple more updates, and see if the "new code" to set a minimum VT works yet, but it didn't when I checked 0.21. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
juliedeville n00b
Joined: 14 Oct 2024 Posts: 39
|
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am having the same issue |
|
Back to top |
|
|
juliedeville n00b
Joined: 14 Oct 2024 Posts: 39
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
steve_v Guru
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 Posts: 415 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
It appears this can still be set at compile-time (IOW, works for me), like so. _________________ Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Four times is Official GNOME Policy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GOS Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 09 Sep 2010 Posts: 105 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ Ralphred: This means, you placed the "#TERMINALS"-section directly under "rc::bootwait:/sbin/openrc boot"-line !?
@ steve_v: Where do you place this file? Is it a patch? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ralphred l33t
Joined: 31 Dec 2013 Posts: 664
|
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
GOS wrote: | @ Ralphred: This means, you placed the "#TERMINALS"-section directly under "rc::bootwait:/sbin/openrc boot"-line !? | Yes, but I'll just drop the relevant bit here with context.
Code: | # Default runlevel.
id:5:initdefault:
# System initialization, mount local filesystems, etc.
si::sysinit:/sbin/openrc sysinit
# Further system initialization, brings up the boot runlevel.
rc::bootwait:/sbin/openrc boot
# TERMINALS
c2:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty2 linux
c3:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty3 linux
c4:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty4 linux
c5:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty5 linux
c6:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty6 linux
l0u:0:wait:/sbin/telinit u
l0:0:wait:/sbin/openrc shutdown
l0s:0:wait:/sbin/halt.sh
l1:1:wait:/sbin/openrc single
l2:2:wait:/sbin/openrc default
l3:3:wait:/sbin/openrc multidesktop
l4:4:wait:/sbin/openrc vhost
l5:5:wait:/sbin/openrc desktop
l7u:6:wait:/sbin/telinit u
l7:6:wait:/sbin/openrc reboot
l7r:6:wait:/sbin/reboot -dkn
# new-style single-user
su0:S:wait:/sbin/openrc single
su1:S:wait:/sbin/sulogin
# tty1 after boot finished #
c1:12345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty1 linux
|
GOS wrote: | @ steve_v: Where do you place this file? Is it a patch? | Steve is using /etc/portage/env, so you could use /etc/portage/env/sddmfix: | MYCMAKEARGS="-DSDDM_INITIAL_VT=7" | and /etc/portage/package.env/sddm: | x11-misc/sddm sddmfix |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
GOS Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 09 Sep 2010 Posts: 105 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Ralphred: Thanks a lot. Your approach worked for me. I tested also Steve's approach, but that did not work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ralphred l33t
Joined: 31 Dec 2013 Posts: 664
|
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GOS wrote: | I tested also Steve's approach, but that did not work. |
One day it will; the sddm devs had to re-write the vt allocation code, the outlier use cases for which it doesn't work will get fixed, the code will become stable, and we'll probably(?) end up with a "minvt7" use flag. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|