| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 12:50 on Tuesday 04 January 2011, Peter |
| 2 |
Humphrey did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Monday 03 January 2011 14:40:41 walt wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I'm wondering if you have some mixture of baselayout versions on that |
| 6 |
> > machine from previous updates. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Unlikely: this box has been ~amd64 since before it had a complete |
| 9 |
> system. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > Could your machine be trying to start something other than kdm by |
| 12 |
> > mistake? I.e., maybe you are starting kdm for the first time from |
| 13 |
> > the VT instead of re-starting it? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Also unlikely. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I tried taking xdm out of the default run-level and calling both it and |
| 18 |
> xdm-setup in /etc/conf.d/local. It started up ok then. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Do you have |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
rc_parallel="YES" |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
in /etc/rc.conf? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Try setting it to NO. If stuff then works right, we know your start order is |
| 27 |
incorrect and I would be suspecting you declined an update in /etc/init.d/ |
| 28 |
that you should have accepted. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dunno how you would fix that easily apart from re-emerging everything related |
| 31 |
that creates an init script. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives