Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-03 Thread Peter Hutterer 
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:39:27PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net 
 wrote:
  On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:13:35AM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 
  wrote:
 But I think a better approach should be found for pkg-config
   variables, as creating a configure option is basically only to
   correct make distcheck.
  
   can you please explain what's wrong with make distcheck that it requires
   fixing?
 
make distcheck can be seen as a test of a build and install in
  a controlled environment. It checks if the tarball contains all
  the files required to build the package, among other tests.
 
The problem in the xf86-input-evdev was it attempting to install
  files outside of DESTDIR. Actually, if you run make distcheck as
  root user, it will work. As will it work if you specify a wrong
  destdir but with correct permissions (usually a path not starting
  with / and installing in the build directory), and not cause any
  warnings.
 
  It will also work if you set up the PKG_CONFIG_PATH correctly.
 
  The properties header file is installed where the xserver installs the same
  header file (xserver-properties.h).
  Yes, this may be outside of the prefix, but it's where the other xorg header
  files go too. AFAIC this is the right place to put them.
 
 It is the right place to put them. However, part of the distcheck
 process is checking that make install only installs files under
 $prefix. I say that's a stupid check, but I also think that having
 distcheck pass is a good thing because it uncovers a lot of packaging
 bugs. AFAIK, there isn't a way to override that part of distcheck.
 
  I'm happy to add* a configure-time option for those that want the header
  somewhere else. But auto-guessing just to fix make distcheck on your 
  machine
  is not the right thing to do. And I would have appreciated if you would have
  sent the patch to the list for review first before breaking evdev.
 
 Attached is a patch that should add the appropriate workaround. No
 help text is added for the --with-sdkdir option so that people don't
 get the idea that they want to use this option.

applied the patch locally, ran make distcheck and it still fails. Am I doing
anything wrong?
AFAICT from a quick peek, ${includedir} isn't expanded. Can you double-check
this please?

Cheers,
  Peter
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-03 Thread Dan Nicholson 
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:39:27PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net 
 wrote:
  On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:13:35AM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 
  wrote:
 But I think a better approach should be found for pkg-config
   variables, as creating a configure option is basically only to
   correct make distcheck.
  
   can you please explain what's wrong with make distcheck that it requires
   fixing?
 
make distcheck can be seen as a test of a build and install in
  a controlled environment. It checks if the tarball contains all
  the files required to build the package, among other tests.
 
The problem in the xf86-input-evdev was it attempting to install
  files outside of DESTDIR. Actually, if you run make distcheck as
  root user, it will work. As will it work if you specify a wrong
  destdir but with correct permissions (usually a path not starting
  with / and installing in the build directory), and not cause any
  warnings.
 
  It will also work if you set up the PKG_CONFIG_PATH correctly.
 
  The properties header file is installed where the xserver installs the same
  header file (xserver-properties.h).
  Yes, this may be outside of the prefix, but it's where the other xorg 
  header
  files go too. AFAIC this is the right place to put them.

 It is the right place to put them. However, part of the distcheck
 process is checking that make install only installs files under
 $prefix. I say that's a stupid check, but I also think that having
 distcheck pass is a good thing because it uncovers a lot of packaging
 bugs. AFAIK, there isn't a way to override that part of distcheck.

  I'm happy to add* a configure-time option for those that want the header
  somewhere else. But auto-guessing just to fix make distcheck on your 
  machine
  is not the right thing to do. And I would have appreciated if you would 
  have
  sent the patch to the list for review first before breaking evdev.

 Attached is a patch that should add the appropriate workaround. No
 help text is added for the --with-sdkdir option so that people don't
 get the idea that they want to use this option.

 applied the patch locally, ran make distcheck and it still fails. Am I doing
 anything wrong?
 AFAICT from a quick peek, ${includedir} isn't expanded. Can you double-check
 this please?

That part worked for me, but it does fail on ChangeLog somehow.
${includedir} gets expanded by make eventually. Look at the generated
Makefile. All the derived directories like bindir are similar unless
you've explicitly set it from configure. How is it failing for you?

--
Dan
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-03 Thread Peter Hutterer 
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:35:49AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
  applied the patch locally, ran make distcheck and it still fails. Am I doing
  anything wrong?
  AFAICT from a quick peek, ${includedir} isn't expanded. Can you double-check
  this please?
 
 That part worked for me, but it does fail on ChangeLog somehow.
 ${includedir} gets expanded by make eventually. Look at the generated
 Makefile. All the derived directories like bindir are similar unless
 you've explicitly set it from configure. How is it failing for you?

doh. you're right, same here, the changelog is the issue here too.
How about the diff below?
If that's the right thing, just merge it into your patch and re-send the
complete version. (I could do it locally, but I'd like to have the final
version of the patch on the list archives)

diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
index 54814c3..d7a5a65 100644
--- a/Makefile.am
+++ b/Makefile.am
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig
 pkgconfig_DATA = xorg-evdev.pc
 
 EXTRA_DIST = ChangeLog
+DISTCLEANFILES = ChangeLog
 
 MAINTAINERCLEANFILES=ChangeLog


___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-03 Thread Dan Nicholson 
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:35:49AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
  applied the patch locally, ran make distcheck and it still fails. Am I 
  doing
  anything wrong?
  AFAICT from a quick peek, ${includedir} isn't expanded. Can you 
  double-check
  this please?

 That part worked for me, but it does fail on ChangeLog somehow.
 ${includedir} gets expanded by make eventually. Look at the generated
 Makefile. All the derived directories like bindir are similar unless
 you've explicitly set it from configure. How is it failing for you?

 doh. you're right, same here, the changelog is the issue here too.
 How about the diff below?
 If that's the right thing, just merge it into your patch and re-send the
 complete version. (I could do it locally, but I'd like to have the final
 version of the patch on the list archives)

 diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
 index 54814c3..d7a5a65 100644
 --- a/Makefile.am
 +++ b/Makefile.am
 @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig
  pkgconfig_DATA = xorg-evdev.pc

  EXTRA_DIST = ChangeLog
 +DISTCLEANFILES = ChangeLog

  MAINTAINERCLEANFILES=ChangeLog

Actually, I updated my macros, and now it's working.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/macros/commit/?id=55e8d740881ef622376440819119641e67aeb285

I don't think we want ChangeLog in DISTCLEANFILES because then a user
with the tarball will remove it on distclean. Not the end of the
world, but it breaks the distclean notion of get me back to the clean
dist state.

Does that work for you?

--
Dan
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-03 Thread Peter Hutterer 
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 04:50:17PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net 
 wrote:
  On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:35:49AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
   applied the patch locally, ran make distcheck and it still fails. Am I 
   doing
   anything wrong?
   AFAICT from a quick peek, ${includedir} isn't expanded. Can you 
   double-check
   this please?
 
  That part worked for me, but it does fail on ChangeLog somehow.
  ${includedir} gets expanded by make eventually. Look at the generated
  Makefile. All the derived directories like bindir are similar unless
  you've explicitly set it from configure. How is it failing for you?
 
  doh. you're right, same here, the changelog is the issue here too.
  How about the diff below?
  If that's the right thing, just merge it into your patch and re-send the
  complete version. (I could do it locally, but I'd like to have the final
  version of the patch on the list archives)
 
  diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
  index 54814c3..d7a5a65 100644
  --- a/Makefile.am
  +++ b/Makefile.am
  @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig
   pkgconfig_DATA = xorg-evdev.pc
 
   EXTRA_DIST = ChangeLog
  +DISTCLEANFILES = ChangeLog
 
   MAINTAINERCLEANFILES=ChangeLog
 
 Actually, I updated my macros, and now it's working.
 
 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/macros/commit/?id=55e8d740881ef622376440819119641e67aeb285
 
 I don't think we want ChangeLog in DISTCLEANFILES because then a user
 with the tarball will remove it on distclean. Not the end of the
 world, but it breaks the distclean notion of get me back to the clean
 dist state.
 
 Does that work for you?

yeah, updating works, thanks. Should we make macros 1.2.1 a requirement then?

Cheers,
  Peter
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-03 Thread Dan Nicholson 
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 04:50:17PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net 
 wrote:
  On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:35:49AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
   applied the patch locally, ran make distcheck and it still fails. Am I 
   doing
   anything wrong?
   AFAICT from a quick peek, ${includedir} isn't expanded. Can you 
   double-check
   this please?
 
  That part worked for me, but it does fail on ChangeLog somehow.
  ${includedir} gets expanded by make eventually. Look at the generated
  Makefile. All the derived directories like bindir are similar unless
  you've explicitly set it from configure. How is it failing for you?
 
  doh. you're right, same here, the changelog is the issue here too.
  How about the diff below?
  If that's the right thing, just merge it into your patch and re-send the
  complete version. (I could do it locally, but I'd like to have the final
  version of the patch on the list archives)
 
  diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
  index 54814c3..d7a5a65 100644
  --- a/Makefile.am
  +++ b/Makefile.am
  @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig
   pkgconfig_DATA = xorg-evdev.pc
 
   EXTRA_DIST = ChangeLog
  +DISTCLEANFILES = ChangeLog
 
   MAINTAINERCLEANFILES=ChangeLog

 Actually, I updated my macros, and now it's working.

 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/macros/commit/?id=55e8d740881ef622376440819119641e67aeb285

 I don't think we want ChangeLog in DISTCLEANFILES because then a user
 with the tarball will remove it on distclean. Not the end of the
 world, but it breaks the distclean notion of get me back to the clean
 dist state.

 Does that work for you?

 yeah, updating works, thanks. Should we make macros 1.2.1 a requirement then?

Yeah, there should probably be a mass push to 1.2.1 for any packages
(all of them, I think) that are using XORG_CHANGELOG. Sounds fun.

--
Dan
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-02 Thread Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 
Dan Nicholson wrote:
 diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
 index 4ba5a8a..809799f 100644
 --- a/configure.ac
 +++ b/configure.ac
 @@ -72,19 +73,22 @@ XORG_DRIVER_CHECK_EXT(XINPUT, inputproto)
 # Checks for pkg-config packages
 PKG_CHECK_MODULES(XORG, xorg-server xproto $REQUIRED_MODULES)
 -sdkdir=$(pkg-config --variable=sdkdir xorg-server)
 +XORG_CFLAGS=$CWARNFLAGS $XORG_CFLAGS
 +sdkdir=$(pkg-config --variable=sdkdir xorg-server |
 + sed -e 's@/usr/incl...@$(includedir)@')
 AC_SUBST(sdkdir)

 The sdkdir handling breaks installation of the properties header. This
 is wrong on many levels. If you want to fix distcheck, please do it
 like we talked about for the app-defaults directory.

 configure.ac:
 AC_ARG_WITH([sdkdir],
 [AC_HELP_STRING([--with-sdkdir],[the xserver SDK directory
 (default: from pkg-config)])],
 [sdkdir=$withval],
 [sdkdir=`$PKG_CONFIG --variable=sdkdir xorg-server`])
 AC_SUBST([sdkdir])

 Makefile.am:
 DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS = --with-sdkdir='$${includedir}/xorg'

  You are right. It was naive of me to only test with --prefix=/usr

  But I think a better approach should be found for pkg-config
variables, as creating a configure option is basically only to
correct make distcheck.

Paulo

___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-02 Thread Peter Hutterer 
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 12:35:14AM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
 Dan Nicholson wrote:
  diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
  index 4ba5a8a..809799f 100644
  --- a/configure.ac
  +++ b/configure.ac
  @@ -72,19 +73,22 @@ XORG_DRIVER_CHECK_EXT(XINPUT, inputproto)
  # Checks for pkg-config packages
  PKG_CHECK_MODULES(XORG, xorg-server xproto $REQUIRED_MODULES)
  -sdkdir=$(pkg-config --variable=sdkdir xorg-server)
  +XORG_CFLAGS=$CWARNFLAGS $XORG_CFLAGS
  +sdkdir=$(pkg-config --variable=sdkdir xorg-server |
  + sed -e 's@/usr/incl...@$(includedir)@')
  AC_SUBST(sdkdir)
 
  The sdkdir handling breaks installation of the properties header. This
  is wrong on many levels. If you want to fix distcheck, please do it
  like we talked about for the app-defaults directory.
 
  configure.ac:
  AC_ARG_WITH([sdkdir],
  [AC_HELP_STRING([--with-sdkdir],[the xserver SDK directory
  (default: from pkg-config)])],
  [sdkdir=$withval],
  [sdkdir=`$PKG_CONFIG --variable=sdkdir xorg-server`])
  AC_SUBST([sdkdir])
 
  Makefile.am:
  DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS = --with-sdkdir='$${includedir}/xorg'
 
   You are right. It was naive of me to only test with --prefix=/usr
 
   But I think a better approach should be found for pkg-config
 variables, as creating a configure option is basically only to
 correct make distcheck.

can you please explain what's wrong with make distcheck that it requires
fixing?

Cheers,
  Peter
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-02 Thread Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 
Peter Hutterer wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 12:35:14AM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
 wrote:
 Dan Nicholson wrote:
  diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
  index 4ba5a8a..809799f 100644
  --- a/configure.ac
  +++ b/configure.ac
  @@ -72,19 +73,22 @@ XORG_DRIVER_CHECK_EXT(XINPUT, inputproto)
  # Checks for pkg-config packages
  PKG_CHECK_MODULES(XORG, xorg-server xproto $REQUIRED_MODULES)
  -sdkdir=$(pkg-config --variable=sdkdir xorg-server)
  +XORG_CFLAGS=$CWARNFLAGS $XORG_CFLAGS
  +sdkdir=$(pkg-config --variable=sdkdir xorg-server |
  + sed -e 's@/usr/incl...@$(includedir)@')
  AC_SUBST(sdkdir)
 
  The sdkdir handling breaks installation of the properties header. This
  is wrong on many levels. If you want to fix distcheck, please do it
  like we talked about for the app-defaults directory.
 
  configure.ac:
  AC_ARG_WITH([sdkdir],
  [AC_HELP_STRING([--with-sdkdir],[the xserver SDK directory
  (default: from pkg-config)])],
  [sdkdir=$withval],
  [sdkdir=`$PKG_CONFIG --variable=sdkdir xorg-server`])
  AC_SUBST([sdkdir])
 
  Makefile.am:
  DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS = --with-sdkdir='$${includedir}/xorg'

   You are right. It was naive of me to only test with --prefix=/usr

   But I think a better approach should be found for pkg-config
 variables, as creating a configure option is basically only to
 correct make distcheck.

 can you please explain what's wrong with make distcheck that it requires
 fixing?

  make distcheck can be seen as a test of a build and install in
a controlled environment. It checks if the tarball contains all
the files required to build the package, among other tests.

  The problem in the xf86-input-evdev was it attempting to install
files outside of DESTDIR. Actually, if you run make distcheck as
root user, it will work. As will it work if you specify a wrong
destdir but with correct permissions (usually a path not starting
with / and installing in the build directory), and not cause any
warnings.

  The problen Dan is talking about is that the patch I made was
wrong and would only work with something like
% ./autogen.sh --prefix=/usr
because it broke both normal make install and make distcheck for
other prefixes.

Paulo

___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2009-02-02 Thread Dan Nicholson 
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:13:35AM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade 
 wrote:
But I think a better approach should be found for pkg-config
  variables, as creating a configure option is basically only to
  correct make distcheck.
 
  can you please explain what's wrong with make distcheck that it requires
  fixing?

   make distcheck can be seen as a test of a build and install in
 a controlled environment. It checks if the tarball contains all
 the files required to build the package, among other tests.

   The problem in the xf86-input-evdev was it attempting to install
 files outside of DESTDIR. Actually, if you run make distcheck as
 root user, it will work. As will it work if you specify a wrong
 destdir but with correct permissions (usually a path not starting
 with / and installing in the build directory), and not cause any
 warnings.

 It will also work if you set up the PKG_CONFIG_PATH correctly.

 The properties header file is installed where the xserver installs the same
 header file (xserver-properties.h).
 Yes, this may be outside of the prefix, but it's where the other xorg header
 files go too. AFAIC this is the right place to put them.

It is the right place to put them. However, part of the distcheck
process is checking that make install only installs files under
$prefix. I say that's a stupid check, but I also think that having
distcheck pass is a good thing because it uncovers a lot of packaging
bugs. AFAIK, there isn't a way to override that part of distcheck.

 I'm happy to add* a configure-time option for those that want the header
 somewhere else. But auto-guessing just to fix make distcheck on your machine
 is not the right thing to do. And I would have appreciated if you would have
 sent the patch to the list for review first before breaking evdev.

Attached is a patch that should add the appropriate workaround. No
help text is added for the --with-sdkdir option so that people don't
get the idea that they want to use this option.

--
Dan


evdev-distcheck.patch
Description: application/mbox
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2008-12-07 Thread Sascha Hlusiak 
Hi Daniel,

Am Tuesday 02 December 2008 10:13:50 schrieb Daniel Stone:
 On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:21:33AM +0100, Sascha Hlusiak wrote:
  Please have a look at xkb/ddxCtrls.c @ XkbDDXUsesSoftRepeat. Software
  autorepeat will exactly not happen in the server, if delay is set to 660
  and rate is set to 25 (interval=40). This is the default setting when
  starting up the server.
 
  Any comments on removing that complete chunk or on setting
  XKB_ALWAYS_USES_SOFT_REPEAT?

 Hi,
 XkbDDXUsesSoftRepeat is pretty weird with checking for the AccessX
 flags, but based on a quick look at the XkbProcessKeyEvent flow, I think
 it's pretty safe to always just return 1 from XkbDDXUsesSoftRepeat.  We
 can gut the rest later on, as a continuation of xkb-atkins.  I don't
 have a clean tree around (am in the middle of a big rebase -i with large
 uncommitted changes), but if you or anyone else feels like committing
 that, and you've tested that it works:
 Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I did some tests and it turned out that commit 
6867652c2c8ad563d5655302d94134592b10265b in xf86-input-evdev did not stop the 
event from sending repeated events at all. I replaced it with a patch that 
just ignores all autorepeated events in evdev. Has the same effect. 

And with kicking out the code of xserver, I get completely working and correct 
key autorepeat. Delay and rate is correct, default is working as well and 
modifiers don't repeat, as expected.


When applying the evdev patch but not the xserver patch, you get non-working 
autorepeat when it's set exactly to a delay of 660 and rate of 25 (interval 
40), which is the default. I'd rather send the patches to the list first, so 
you can decide which branches to commit them to.


Cheers,
Sascha
diff --git a/src/evdev.c b/src/evdev.c
index 7b06c91..d246eed 100644
--- a/src/evdev.c
+++ b/src/evdev.c
@@ -238,15 +238,10 @@ PostKbdEvent(InputInfoPtr pInfo, struct input_event *ev, int value)
 int code = ev-code + MIN_KEYCODE;
 static char warned[KEY_MAX];
 
-/* filter repeat events for chording keys */
-if (value == 2 
-(ev-code == KEY_LEFTCTRL || ev-code == KEY_RIGHTCTRL ||
- ev-code == KEY_LEFTSHIFT || ev-code == KEY_RIGHTSHIFT ||
- ev-code == KEY_LEFTALT || ev-code == KEY_RIGHTALT ||
- ev-code == KEY_LEFTMETA || ev-code == KEY_RIGHTMETA ||
- ev-code == KEY_CAPSLOCK || ev-code == KEY_NUMLOCK ||
- ev-code == KEY_SCROLLLOCK)) /* XXX windows keys? */
-return;
+/* Filter all repeated events from device.
+   We'll do softrepeat in the server */
+if (value == 2)
+	return;
 
 if (code  255  ev-code  KEY_MAX) {
 	if (!warned[ev-code])
diff --git a/xkb/ddxCtrls.c b/xkb/ddxCtrls.c
index 34ea0bd..be269c2 100644
--- a/xkb/ddxCtrls.c
+++ b/xkb/ddxCtrls.c
@@ -57,27 +57,7 @@ int realRepeat;
 int
 XkbDDXUsesSoftRepeat(DeviceIntPtr pXDev)
 {
-#ifndef XKB_ALWAYS_USES_SOFT_REPEAT
-if (pXDev  pXDev-kbdfeed ) {
-	if (pXDev-kbdfeed-ctrl.autoRepeat) {
-	if (pXDev-key  pXDev-key-xkbInfo) {
-		XkbDescPtr	xkb;
-		xkb= pXDev-key-xkbInfo-desc;
-		if ((xkb-ctrls-repeat_delay == 660) 
-		(xkb-ctrls-repeat_interval == 40) 
-		((xkb-ctrls-enabled_ctrls(XkbSlowKeysMask|
-		 XkbBounceKeysMask|
-		 XkbMouseKeysMask))==0)) {
-			return 0;
-		}
-		return ((xkb-ctrls-enabled_ctrlsXkbRepeatKeysMask)!=0);
-	}
-	}
-}
-return 0;
-#else
 return 1;
-#endif
 }
 
 void


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xf86-input-evdev: Changes to 'master'

2008-12-02 Thread Daniel Stone 
[Resending with correct address, sorry Sascha.]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:21:33AM +0100, Sascha Hlusiak wrote:
 Please have a look at xkb/ddxCtrls.c @ XkbDDXUsesSoftRepeat. Software
 autorepeat will exactly not happen in the server, if delay is set to 660
 and rate is set to 25 (interval=40). This is the default setting when
 starting up the server.
 
 Any comments on removing that complete chunk or on setting
 XKB_ALWAYS_USES_SOFT_REPEAT?

Hi,
XkbDDXUsesSoftRepeat is pretty weird with checking for the AccessX
flags, but based on a quick look at the XkbProcessKeyEvent flow, I think
it's pretty safe to always just return 1 from XkbDDXUsesSoftRepeat.  We
can gut the rest later on, as a continuation of xkb-atkins.  I don't
have a clean tree around (am in the middle of a big rebase -i with large
uncommitted changes), but if you or anyone else feels like committing
that, and you've tested that it works:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks for pointing this out. :)

Cheers,
Daniel


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg