This is the mail archive of the cygwin-xfree mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: startxwin.exe no longer exists?


On 12/16/2014 8:00 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
<snip>
Sure, display :0 is unavailable; checking DISPLAY in the (unwanted)
xterm shows DISPLAY is set to :5.  Why's that I wonder?

Further investigation shows ls -ltr /tmp:

-r--r--r--  1 william None 11 Nov 28 17:43 /tmp/.X0-lock
-r--r--r--  1 william None 11 Dec 13 17:43 /tmp/.X1-lock
-r--r--r--  1 william None 11 Dec 13 17:55 /tmp/.X2-lock
-r--r--r--  1 william None 11 Dec 13 19:22 /tmp/.X3-lock
-r--r--r--  1 william None 11 Dec 15 16:53 /tmp/.X4-lock
-r--r--r--  1 william None 11 Dec 15 17:00 /tmp/.X5-lock

Interesting.  It looks like every time I start an X session a lock
file is created and doesn't get deleted, so the display number keeps
changing.  This doesn't look right, so how do I avoid it?

--
Will
What I do is specify the display on the command line.  If it fails, I
check for an existing operational session with the same display.  If
it exists, I simply exit the script.  If not, I free the lock file and
retry the X server start on the chosen display.

-- Erik

Shouldn't the startxwin script check for running instances and delete all lock-files related to non-existent instances? Why must this be a manual operation?


The prior startxwin.exe "just worked", and this new replacement script is clearly creating problems for previously happy CygwinX users, where no problems existed before (or, at least the problems weren't visible and didn't affect normal use).

I would have preferred to have seen startxwin.exe retained, and this new script phased in gradually, perhaps as "startxwin_new" in the first release. Then, when startxwin_new stabilizes, rename the executable to startxwin_old.exe and the script to startxwin. Several updates later, quietly remove startxwin_old.exe.

It seems nonsensical to treat all CygwinX users as alpha testers. I'm more than willing to help test new features, but not in the dark: Make it very clear when significant subsystems are being evolved, and provide a way to try the new without losing the old.

For now, can startxwin.exe be restored under some name?

-BobC


--
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/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]