Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: xinit-1.2.0-2

[Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>]

Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 29/12/2009 16:27, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Sounds like a good idea, but I wish I'd known this was coming before
>> wasting time on:
>>
>>          * Improve checkX behavior when used as 'barrier' in startxwin.
> 
> Sorry about that, Chuck, but this was just the latest of a long string
> of issues involving these scripts.  We've been talking about replacing
> them for a while, and the recent traffic on the list was enough of an
> impetus to make me finally stop bandaging the scripts and find a better
> solution.  Plus, we gain argument handling and .startxwinrc, something
> the scripts would likely never do.

Like I said, it sounds to me like a good idea; there's just so many
issues that can go (and have gone) wrong in these scripts -- PLUS, whose
idea was it to have TWO, one .sh and one .bat?!!?  Yeeesh.  We're well
rid of them.

> Honestly, this wasn't even checkX's fault, so we weren't expecting you
> to "fix" it.  The real problem here is a corner-case bug in the server;
> the race condition that checkX was causing was just the trigger.  We
> still need to get to the bottom of that, but in the meantime we have a
> solution that completely avoids the problem and gives us new features to
> boot.

Yes, it definitely seemed like some sort of race going on -- I even
noticed sometimes that checkX would return success (e.g. was able to
call XOpenDisplay()), but that the very next command in my startxwin.sh
script would fail with a "can't open display" error.  Err...what?

So, yeah, I think startxwin.exe/.startxwinrc is a really excellent step
forward.

--
Chuck

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/