Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:47:26 -0500 (EST) From: Ted Buswell <tbuswell@mediaone.net> To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> Cc: Ted Buswell <tbuswell@mediaone.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, jmz@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xdm & login.conf limits. Message-ID: <199801221647.LAA12905@tbuswell.ne.mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980122101508.8321D-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> References: <199801221454.JAA12582@tbuswell.ne.mediaone.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980122101508.8321D-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "John" == John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> writes:
John> The XFree86 in the ports collection already has a ptach for
John> this. Unfortunately, that patch does not set the
Reading the patches from the port, it's amazing how unoriginal my
patch was. But I'll admit I didn't know there was a XFree86 port.
In any case, when I do an OS install and choose to include X, are the
binaries that get installed generated from the port,
or are they obtained from another source (like a binary dist from
XFree86.org)?
Would it be possible to get the xdm that gets intalled during
OS install (X User, X Developer, etc.) be a 'login.conf aware' xdm?
That is, if the OS install uses pure XFree86 code, has [should?] the
patch in the port made it back to XFree86?
Thanks,
-Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801221647.LAA12905>