DRI and runlevel 4
 

I have DRI working in runlevel 3 (the standard for Slackware). When I change initab to use runlevel 4 (straight to X), I lose DRI. Any ideas? As I said, works perfect in 3, not at all in 4

Not sure if slackware uses it but many Unix/Linux distros use SVR4 style init scripts.

Essentially you create the base init script (often in /etc/init.d - some distros have this as a symbolic link to where they really are). You then create links (usually symbolic) from /etc/init.d files to files in /etc/rc?.d (or similar location). The ? is for each run level so there would be a rc1.d, a rc2.d etc...

The link usually has the format of S##file or K##file where S means start and K means stop (kill) and the ## is the order in which it would do it (01 = first, 99 = last). The "file" is usually the same as the file name in init.d.

Check to see if you have such a S##file for startup for this application in your rc3.d. If so just copy it into your rc4.d and you should be good to go.

Slackware goes in a /etc/rc.d/rc.? system, no sym links. There is no rc.3, and all rc.4 does is call the session manager. No help. X is running fine, no errors in the log file, just that DRI isn't working.

I'm figuring that xorg.conf is called either way, so why won't DRI work in 4, but does in 3?

Decided to reset my initab back to 4, rebooted (wanted to see what the logs were saying, again), and lo and behold, DRI is fine...I hate that....Doing the windows fix ("If all else fails, reboot")

Since distributions do vary somewhat in exactly how they set-up the runlevel files and where they put them, the place to begin is always /etc/inittab: the actual file which init refers to...

Read my post AGAIN. It's NOT the rc.? files. They only start the process. Everything BUT dri is fine, no matter what init level I chose, except 4. It seems to be more in parsing the xorg.conf file. Is there another xorg.conf type file running around in the system somewhere? Or when choosing 4, does xorg skip a file or two?

In Slackware, the default runlevel is 3. That calls rc.M, which is ALSO called before rc.4 in a runlevel 4 situation (I have special echo calls in my rc.? files to keep track of what is/what is not loading for my servers...Those little additions to my rc.? files has help alot in setting this thing up, so I know if different configs are loading things in a inconsistant manner). So I know the base calls are fine, it's just when the system is handed over to xorg, that I lose track.

You seem a little testy for a peson requesting help.

Sundial didn't say to look in the rc scripts. He was saying there may be some other init script involved. Since your issue is run level specific it isn't silly to focus on init/rc stuff. Though its not impossible I've not seen many conf files that care about what run level you're in.

Also for future reference rather than saying "no help" it might be more polite to say "thanks for your input but that wasn't the issue".

Please remember that all types post in this forum. We have no way of knowing what you already know so no offense is intended by telling you to try things you may already have tried if you haven't noted you did. It doesn't mean we think you're stupid - just means that's what we would do given the information provided by your post.

I know. And that is why I expanded on it on my next post. I have already been thru the scripts, many times, and nothing in there points to the DRI issue. What I'm assuming, becuase I cannot even start to fathom it, is that after rc.4 is called, for the graphical login, that X may use a different conf file or something along those lines.

I have not delved into the inner workings of X very much. I know that on occasions, you can delete the xorg.conf file, and it will still boot (hence leading me to my thoughts that there may be a copy saved somewhere as an unknown name).

Anybody know about X? Does it do what the evidence is suggesting?

As for the scripts in the previous post, I do apologize for not making myself more clear. And the 'no good' statement is just me. I tend not to wax eloquent when the solution is no good. I may be too direct for you, but my time is not always best spent assuaging the egos of others. You will also find that when the solution works, I just say 'It worked'. That's just me. If you want the top of the line in politeness and manners, I'm not that person. I'm just direct and to the point.