Web lists-archives.com

Re: logout kills X






On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:57:59 -0500
Felix Miata <mrmazda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Brian composed on 2019-01-30 19:12 (UTC):
> 
> > On Wed 30 Jan 2019 at 13:48:17 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:  
> 
> >> hohe72@xxxxxxxx composed on 2019-01-30 18:38 (UTC+0100):  
> 
> >> > I logged in (to tty1)
> >> > started X (startx)
> >> > switched to tty2
> >> > logged in (using the same name)
> >> > logged out  
> 
> >> > -> X on tty1 crashes  
> 
> >> Same problem if you don't use tty1, instead logging in first on
> >> tty2, and after on tty3?  
> 
> > Did *you* try this? In fact, did *you* even try the procedure that
> > hohe72 describes so well?  
> 
> Not so well. He left out the part about what he's actually using,

aewm (I may switch to jwm. However no need yet.) 

> what else he has installed from backports,

aptitude search '~i\.bpo\.'
i   linux-headers-4.12.0-0.bpo.2-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.12.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.12.0-0.bpo.2-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.12.0-0.bpo.2 i
linux-headers-4.13.0-0.bpo.1-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.13.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.13.0-0.bpo.1-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.13.0-0.bpo.1 i
linux-headers-4.14.0-0.bpo.3-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.14.0-0.bpo.3-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.14.0-0.bpo.3-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.14.0-0.bpo.3 i
linux-headers-4.15.0-0.bpo.2-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.15.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.15.0-0.bpo.2-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.15.0-0.bpo.2 i
linux-headers-4.16.0-0.bpo.1-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.16.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.16.0-0.bpo.1-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.16.0-0.bpo.1 i
linux-headers-4.16.0-0.bpo.2-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.16.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.16.0-0.bpo.2-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.16.0-0.bpo.2 i
linux-headers-4.17.0-0.bpo.1-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.17.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.17.0-0.bpo.1-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.17.0-0.bpo.1 i
linux-headers-4.17.0-0.bpo.3-amd64                               -
Header files for Linux 4.17.0-0.bpo.3-amd64 i A
linux-headers-4.17.0-0.bpo.3-common                              -
Common header files for Linux 4.17.0-0.bpo.3 i A
linux-image-4.12.0-0.bpo.2-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.12 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.13.0-0.bpo.1-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.13 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.14.0-0.bpo.2-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.14 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.14.0-0.bpo.3-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.14 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.15.0-0.bpo.2-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.15 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.16.0-0.bpo.1-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.16 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.16.0-0.bpo.2-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.16 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.17.0-0.bpo.1-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.17 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.17.0-0.bpo.3-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.17 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.18.0-0.bpo.1-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.18 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.18.0-0.bpo.3-amd64                                 -
Linux 4.18 for 64-bit PCs i A
linux-image-4.19.0-0.bpo.1-amd64-unsigned                        -
Linux 4.19 for 64-bit PCs 

> or what gfx,

??

> so I don't know that I could match his configuration. I don't have
> any Stretch

I'm using debian 9.<current>--always having problems with toy story
names.

> installations using backport kernels, so no, even though
> I was initially inclined to, I didn't try, which is why I asked
> instead of saying WFM or confirming.