ldm numlock

[Jordan Erickson]

Scott,

Following your directions regarding numlockx on the server did not work 
for me - and I remember we figured out why last week/week before (do you 
remember?), but I don't recall now. I'll try and dig up the IRC log.  I 
know Gadi and I spoke about it as well.

- Jordan


Scott Balneaves wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:15:48PM -0700, Jordan Erickson wrote:
>   
>> I seem to remember this conversation just last week. ;)
>>
>> Please see LTSP-Developer thread: 
>> http://marc.info/?l=ltsp-developer&m=121559909600744&w=2
>>
>> There is a patch involved, lts.conf variable, but hasn't had any action 
>> based upon last message regarding external dependency.
>>
>> Let's get the ball rolling on this, I'd love to see it backported to 
>> Hardy as it's an issue at all of my sites as well.
>>     
>
> Well, short term, I'd say you could resolve it in one of two ways:
>
> 1) Putting it on the server, as I've described previously
> 2) I wouldn't want to accept that patch, because hardcoding numlockx into the
> greeter's just... ewww.  We've got an rc.d mechanism, so you could just do 
> something along the lines of installing numlockx within the chroot, then
> creating a ${CHROOT}/usr/share/ldm/rc.d/10numlock that goes something like:
>
> if [ -n "${LDM_NUMLOCK}" ]; then
>     numlockx "${LDM_NUMLOCK}"
> fi
>
> Personally, I prefer 1, since, on the server, you know who the user is.
>
> So, for instance, if you have a server with 30 terminals, 15 users WANT their
> numlock turned on, and 15 people want it off, you can add the 15 people into a
> "numlock" group, and do something cool like: (in an
> /etc/X11/Xsession.d/10numlock file)
>
> NUMLOCKSTATUS=$(id | grep numlock)
>
> if [ -n "${NUMLOCKSTATUS}" ]; then
>     numlockx on
> fi
>
> Doing it within the chroot ties numlock to the terminal i.e. you can set
> LDM_NUMLOCK = on in your lts.conf, and anyone who sits at that TERMINAL gets
> their numlock turned on.  My preferred way (on the server) means that a
> particular USER gets their numlock desires honoured, whichever terminal they
> sit at.
>
> Or at least, that's my reasoning.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
>