On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:33:59PM +1030, Ron wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:05:40PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 08:49:48PM -0800, Ping wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Ron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:04:37PM -0800, Ping wrote: > > > >> I agree with you guys for this plan since special settings of > > > >> identical devices would (probably) have to be dealt separately in > > > >> xorg.conf, which would have a different dev_name for each tool anyway. > > > > > > > > Ack. That's pretty much how I was imagining it. > > > > Did we decide on whether backward compatibility here is needed? > > > > > > If we don't have a forward solution (as you described before) for > > > identical devices, we would have to provide a backward solution for > > > linuxwacom.rules in the old xorg.conf way. I rely on both you and > > > Peter for solutions (there is nowhere to escape once you come here :). > > > > > > > What about 'list' vs '--list'? I like the idea of `xinput list` > > > > and `xsetwacom list` doing exactly the same thing, and not having > > > > to remember which of them needs -- for that option... > > > > > > I like "list". It saves two key presses (energy efficient :). The old > > > xsetwacom uses "list" instead of "--list". > > > > xsetwacom takes both "list" and "--list". i prefer the latter because it > > explicitly states which part is an option and which part isn't. especially > > when you're dealing with device names with spaces and the quotation marks > > get stripped for whatever reason. I realize that with git and many other > > programs, these days the -- before options isn't quite as default anymore. > > > > For xsetwacom (and xinput) both options will stay so it's really up to your > > personal preference and I don't really have a strong enough opinion to > > actually care which one you pick :) > > Ah I missed that xinput actually takes both forms. The man page only > documents the versions without --, and consistency with it was my only > interest in changing this, so yeah this is a nobrainer then.
interesting. I think we might be looking at a different man page, the one for xinput 1.5 documents all options with --. > Ok. So do we actually have a problem with changing the output of this? > I think we already have from the 0.8.x series. The current output isn't > very friendly to people who want to use it as input for other commands. > We can update the tools we control, which should then stay in sync with > the xsetwacom version they are released with. > > My gut feeling on this one is that we should just Do It and move on to > the other things we need to get right for it all to work well. I'm be in favour as well, at least a colon would be nice between the name and the type :) Cheers, Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies. http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Linuxwacom-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxwacom-devel
