On Tuesday 09 of May 2017 23:02:10 Felix Miata wrote:
> Slávek Banko composed on 2017-05-06 17:39 (UTC+0200):
> > Felix Miata wrote:
> >> The definition of multi-user.target as I remember it is that a
> >> display manager, aka login manager or greeter, is not included. Yet,
> >> on Stretch, TDM is nevertheless started even though graphical.target
> >> is not reached or desired, and multi-user.target is the configured
> >> default. The login manager elsewhere than in Stretch is the sole
> >> characteristic normally distinguishing multi-user.target from
> >> graphical.target.
> >>
> >> So, the subject question is whether this absence of difference
> >> between multi-user.target and graphical.target using TDE on Stretch
> >> is expected and normal?
> >
> > Now I've checked that tdm.service is installed in
> > /lib/systemd/system/ and nowhere is explicitly stated whether to be
> > at the level multi-user.target or graphical.target. The level should
> > therefore be as defined for Debian's "display manager".
>
> Where does one find or make the definition of 'Debian's "display
> manager"'?
>
> Why is tdm running in the following conditions on host big31?
>
> # cat /etc/debian_version
> 9.0
> # grep RETT /etc/os-release
> PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch)"
> # ll /etc/X11/def*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 21 May  9 16:32 /etc/X11/default-display-manager
> # cat /proc/cmdline
> ro root=LABEL=hcs5stretch net.ifnames=0 ipv6.disable=1 noresume
> plymouth.enable=0 vga=791 video=1024x768@60
> # cat /etc/X11/def*
> /opt/trinity/bin/tdm
> # systemctl get-default
> multi-user.target
> # systemctl status display-manager
>    tdm.service - Trinity Display Manager
> 	Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/tdm.service; enabled; vendor
> preset: enabled) Active: inactive (dead)
> 		Docs: man:tdm-trinity(1)
> # systemctl status tdm
>    tdm.service - Trinity Display Manager
> 	Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/tdm.service; enabled; vendor
> preset: enabled) Active: inactive (dead)
> 		Docs: man:tdm-trinity(1)
> # ps -A | grep dm
>   528 ?        00:00:00 rpc.idmapd
>   644 ?        00:00:00 tdm
>   902 ?        00:00:00 tdm
>   904 ?        00:00:02 tdm_greet

I think there may be one more problem - a service for systemd is 
called 'tdm', while 'classical' init script is called 'tdm-trinity'. I 
think in your case tdm can be run by a classical init script. This would 
correspond to the fact that tdm service is 'inactive'.

Maybe it's time to rename 'classical' init script to 'tdm' instead of the 
current 'tdm-trinity'. Thanks to the earlier renaming of 'kdm' => 'tdm', 
there is no longer any conflict if the init script is to be briefly 
named 'tdm'. It is only necessary to test whether this will help :)

Cheers
-- 
Slávek