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/
