Re: run.exe will not work with upgrade from 1.14.4 to 1.16.3
On January 3, 2015 12:03:58 AM PST, Laurens Blankers laur...@blankersfamily.com wrote: I am not arguing that the solution should be discarded, I am arguing that the way the transition was handled, or not handled actually, it not worthy of being called engineering, development, or even programming. Strong words, but absolutely correct. Transitions affecting the user experience should be gradual, not violent. This was an unnecessarily violent transition with much breakage. Revert, replan, redeploy. -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/
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/
Re: startxwin.exe no longer exists?
On 12/16/2014 9:06 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote: snip 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? I generally recommend against automagic cleanup of lock files from dead sessions being a general default because that also wipes out warning that something went wrong. I do it in my situation because I have it on (essentially) dumb terminals where the session working is much more important than knowing something went wrong, and the dumb terminals are on flaky power, so most of the dead sessions are due to power failure anyway. Then the script should provide a popup (via zenity, yad, dialog, or whatever) that informs the user that a prior session crashed, and offer a Continue/Abort choice. Don't force casual X users to learn about lock-files. By default, also provide a popup whenever a running server is detected, to avoid redundant servers being launched inadvertently. Help normal users get on with their work, rather than providing a surprisingly different environment requiring specialized knowledge to resolve. 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 actually have no experience with startxwin; I always called the X server directly with the options I wanted. However, I can say that freeing of lock files is the job of the process that created the lock files. If you kill the process, stray lock files are a normal expectation. Evidently, that isn't being done. But the prior startxwin.exe never, in my experience, created the issues of the new startxwin script. 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. The changes were announced, and the announcement already sited in this thread. Having read the announcement again, it looks like the replacement has as one of its goals bringing the X system more in line with general X and *nix standards, which, as far as I know, has always been a general goal of the entire Cygwin set of projects. I never used this list until AFTER the update killed my previously stable CygwinX environment. It is silly to expect all CygwinX users to actively monitor a list just to avoid getting their systems broken. -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/
Re: xf86-video-nested HOWTO or FAQ?
OK, the README says to use this line: X -config my.conf -noreset -retro :1 but Cygwin X doesn't support the -config option. Any recommendations for how to make this work? TIA, -BobC On 12/5/2014 8:47 AM, Bob Cunningham wrote: Wouldn't you know it: Moments after hitting send, I found /usr/share/doc/xf86-video-nested/README on my local system. Looking through it now. -BobC On 12/05/2014 08:34 AM, Bob Cunningham wrote: Hi, I've seen the announcements that xf86-video-nested is included in CygwinX, and is intended to replace Xnest/Xephyr. But nowhere have I (well, google) been able to find instructions on how to actually accomplish this within the Cygwin environment. Has anyone actually successfully done this? Or is it a work-in-progress that isn't yet ready for end-users? TIA, -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/ -- 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/ -- 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/
