This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
Re: Bug in startxwin.bat after installing with setup.exe in win98SE
- From: Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>
- To: Jehan <nahor at bravobrava dot com>, cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 18:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: Bug in startxwin.bat after installing with setup.exe in win98SE
--- Jehan <nahor@bravobrava.com> wrote:
> Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > --- Jehan <nahor@bravobrava.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> >>
> >>>--- Jehan <nahor@bravobrava.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>If you search the archives, others have already made icons ready for
> >>
> >>you
> >>
> >>>use :).
> >>
> >>Well, I had this one for quite a while already.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I wonder why not just can all the dos stuff by having the
> >>>batch file call bash which then calls startxwin.sh? One file is
> >>
> >>*much*
> >>
> >>>easier to maintain then two. Anywho, let me know your thoughts on
> >>
> >>this..
> >>
> >>That would be nice I agree. But for what I see on this mailing list,
> >>lots of people have problems with startxwin.sh (.xinitrc and
> .Xautorithy
> >>
> >>stuff) while very few people complain about startxwin.bat. So until we
>
> >>can have startxwin.sh to work as is for most people, I think it's
> better
> >>
> >>to stick with the batch file for now.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You are mistaking "startx" for "startxwin.sh". startxwin.sh is
> basically
> > the same thing as startxwin.bat, but without all the nasty path
> > conversions and soforth. Look again, it has nothing to do with
> .xinitrc
> > and .Xauthority.
>
> One would think so but no. I have an old .Xauthority from a linux
> account. If I use this one and run X with startxwin.sh, I get a bunch of
>
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
> Xlib: No protocol specified
> xsetroot: unable to open display ':0.0'
>
> for each application I try to run.
> If I use an empty .Xauthority, then everything works fine. Well, not
> everything actually but at least I have xterm starting. I don't know
> what differs between the shell and the batch version of startxwin, but
> there is definitely something.
>
> Jehan
Well this is obviously a bug in X and needs to be fixed. I dunno, maybe
I'm wrong, but it just seems a bit silly to have two identical scripts for
two different situations. I'm of the camp that loves reusable code...
Cheers,
Nicholas
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com